|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Lol, you can either moan about Fox or admit that your comrades (better?) are thieves. It doesn't get much dumber than going "drat that Fox News for saying we're poo poo, ps. we love being poo poo and we're super proud of it" Antifa shares a banner with people who take the opportunity to loot and cause property damage. We're willing to share that banner because we're marching against people who take the opportunity to commit murder and terrorise minority communities. They march under the same banner as Trump's supporters. So, remember, we're all noticing who you're jumping to condemn here.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Lol, you can either moan about Fox or admit that your comrades (better?) are thieves. It doesn't get much dumber than going "drat that Fox News for saying we're poo poo, ps. we love being poo poo and we're super proud of it" Too many Americans have died in order that Afghan girls can be taught how to put a condom on a banana.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Where's that Dril tweet about how there's no difference between good and evil when you need it? "I'm going to side with the non-violent protestors" is pretty meaningless if you aren't out there getting a firehose to the face yourself. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
I'm the good wolf, the people who disagree with me are the bad wolf edit: this is equally applicable to the unedited comic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Cumslut1895 posted:I'm the good wolf, the people who disagree with me are the bad wolf this but the bad wolf is the white one whites are bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
I bet you assumed both wolves were men #WolvesCanBeWomenToo #Feminism
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I bet you assumed both wolves were men obviously the correct interpretation is that the black wolf is a feminist goth lady and the white one is an innocent, vulnerable adolescent white boy who just wants to play his vidya games
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I bet you assumed both wolves were men #NotAllWolfmen
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I've come across this classic bit of Scott Alexander: Scott's fantasy utopia. It's an extended exercise in worldbuilding that makes him look, uh, well...quote:Perfect Language, Perfect Government, Perfect Population. quote:the Raikothin state was plagued by politics. Everyone had a different opinion for which way the state should go, everyone thought everyone else’s opinions were wrong, and debate was interminable, hostile, and unable to make any inroads into the problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I've come across this classic bit of Scott Alexander: Scott's fantasy utopia. It's an extended exercise in worldbuilding that makes him look, uh, well... That reminds me, earlier today I fell down a rabbit hole of youtube comments on a video about chemtrails and this one guy claimed that they "created so many different languages" specifically to drive people apart and keep them asleep I kinda want to hear how this guy thinks that happened or who "they" are that are making up the entire world's languages but I also don't want to interact with him at all because he seemed real unstable, oh well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:That reminds me, earlier today I fell down a rabbit hole of youtube comments on a video about chemtrails and this one guy claimed that they "created so many different languages" specifically to drive people apart and keep them asleep 5 But the Prog came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Prog said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I bet you assumed both wolves were men did you just assume my gender?!?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
naptalan posted:Possibly - this was from a little over a year ago, there's not much reference to Roosh since then. Also it's weird that he has a hate-on for Hillary Clinton, because he's Canadian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Right wingers assert that any place with refugees has large roaming rape gangs. There was an episode of some podcast a couple weeks ago that specifically was about one person who read about the roving rape gangs story you're referring to, and his quest o find out the truth. It was This American Life, iirc. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/621/fear-and-loathing-in-homer-and-rockville
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Cumslut1895 posted:did you just assume my gender?!? Look, I get that you're upset that your god-king is turning out to be exactly who he seemed like he'd be on the campaign trail, but that's no reason to let your comedic chops slip this far. I mean, this joke attempt is only tangentially related to what you're quoting. You're at the level of reciting memes in the vague and unfocused hope that some other mouthbreather will look at them, give a halfhearted grin, and continue scrolling. Don't go full PJW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Look, I get that you're upset that your god-king is turning out to be exactly who he seemed like he'd be on the campaign trail, but that's no reason to let your comedic chops slip this far. I mean, this joke attempt is only tangentially related to what you're quoting. You're at the level of reciting memes in the vague and unfocused hope that some other mouthbreather will look at them, give a halfhearted grin, and continue scrolling. no, the joke was that I said I was the wolf who The Vosgian Beast said was a woman. Namaste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Cumslut1895 posted:did you just assume my gender?!? To me it boils dowwn to this jews are 2% they have 50% power wealth and they are not us by choice, ths choice is made by using said power and wealth to destroy us. many are not part many do not understand full extent doesn’t matter enough do who could have explained it and changed it. whites dont see jews this way partly because jew stealth mostly because jews seem like us from outside so we dont get threatened. If however 2% of the us was chinese and held 50% of power and wealth and used it to destroy our culture we sure would notice and we would kill them all. this is important because this argument that so jews earned it is beside the loving point, they were not entitled to earn it as outsiders they were giving american privilege as insiders it fraud, but its worse they have set up the situation where an even more serious threat is coming from other outsiders who can and will do the same the east asians. only by the time we notice if we are allowed to notice because jews dont want this noticed east asians will be a bigger problems than jews because though less intelligent more numerous. the jewish question is really the jewish asian cog elite multicultural question. whites are being replaced in our own nations by all cog elites but jews purposefully engineered this.There can be no reaction if this is not recognized particularly by all jews in reaction. It might still be possible to salvage the jews I have said it might actually be the best chance at survival, that if jews could finally convert and become white and put all that wealth and power behind white nationalism we would win. Yes some would say what victory, I would say obviously we are talkjng unconditional assimilation and how you ascertain this god knows but jews becoming white nationals would be a pretty big down payment. short of this iits death or war I dont believe whites are going gently I dont think they have yet really flelt personally the cost but its happening fast now and there will be a hard right shift and well I bet jews get caught up in this not just because they will are fighting it but a reckoning is going to be had and we will start to see what we in reaction already know jews really did engineer 90% of bad leftism. It would be nice to avoid that but f not jews have a place to go now so theres no hitler problem of no one will take the jews
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:What, you didn't realize that HPV vaccines cause AIDS? Canadians are a couple decades behind so their conservatives are still real mad about gay marriage and the Clintons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:Canadians are a couple decades behind so their conservatives are still real mad about gay marriage and the Clintons. so are the Americans though
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:5 But the Prog came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Prog said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Perfect LoB/repost combo 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Mods change my name to jew stealth
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I've come across this classic bit of Scott Alexander: Scott's fantasy utopia. It's an extended exercise in worldbuilding that makes him look, uh, well... Man, his answers to questions in the comments are enlightening, even the slightest scar Ching away at the surface shows how crazy this idea was. It's like he read 1984 and thought "why are these ideas being shown to lead to a bad end???"
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
Cavelcade posted:Man, his answers to questions in the comments are enlightening, even the slightest scar Ching away at the surface shows how crazy this idea was. It's like he read 1984 and thought "why are these ideas being shown to lead to a bad end???" To be fair that's what I thought when I was first reading dystopia novels when I was in middle school and a turbo-dork (though it was Brave New World and We that I thought were great, 1984 was obviously bad because it contains a bunch of HEY THIS IS BAD LOOK DO YOU GET IT THIS IS BAD obvious statements said by the characters, especially near the end) Scott has worse interpretive powers than a middle schooler, is what I'm saying
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Neon Noodle posted:Mods change my name to jew stealth I'll never forgive Blizzard for the Jew Stealth nerf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I've come across this classic bit of Scott Alexander: Scott's fantasy utopia. It does the libertarian idiocy almost immediately: sure, there are rich and powerful organizations that can force you to do almost anything that meets the entire society's utility function, but it's not called a "government" and that's key somehow. There's a lot to laugh at, but I think my favorite part is how evopsych is like a key teaching of rationalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:There's a lot to laugh at, but I think my favorite part is how evopsych is like a key teaching of rationalism. Evopsych is the perfect microcosm of Rationalism™. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:It does the libertarian idiocy almost immediately: sure, there are rich and powerful organizations that can force you to do almost anything that meets the entire society's utility function, but it's not called a "government" and that's key somehow. It's true freedom because the people who run the powerful corporations were free to run the corporations, unlike elected officials who are forced into those jobs by the evil masses I guess?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Cumslut1895 posted:did you just assume my gender?!? What a clever and innovative punchline!
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:What a clever and innovative punchline! Somfin posted:Look, I get that you're upset that your god-king is turning out to be exactly who he seemed like he'd be on the campaign trail, but that's no reason to let your comedic chops slip this far. I mean, this joke attempt is only tangentially related to what you're quoting. You're at the level of reciting memes in the vague and unfocused hope that some other mouthbreather will look at them, give a halfhearted grin, and continue scrolling. so is everyone in this thread going to ignore the actual joke I made so they can take stupid potshots: Cumslut1895 posted:I'm the good wolf, the people who disagree with me are the bad wolf The Vosgian Beast posted:I bet you assumed both wolves were men Cumslut1895 posted:did you just assume my gender?!?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Cumslut1895 posted:so is everyone in this thread going to ignore the actual joke I made so they can take stupid potshots: What joke
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
An Open Letter to Publishers and Readers Concerning Amazon.com, Censorship, and the “Liberty of Thought and Discussion” Dear Friends and Fellow Publishers: My name is Chip Smith and I’m the sole proprietor of a small press called Nine-Banded Books, or just 9BB. You probably haven’t heard of 9BB, and that’s fine by me. The books I publish aren’t for everyone. Some of them deal with prickly ideas that many people – perhaps you? – will find offensive. That’s nothing new. Offensive books are an integral part of the history of publishing. They’re easy to ignore, and just as easy to get riled up about. Some people like to discuss them, while other people wonder what all the fuss is about. And of course, there have always been some people who would prefer to set them on fire and punish the scoundrels who write, sell and publish them. It’s been a real tug-o-war ever since Gutenberg greased up the cogs. But you already know this. Since I assume you’re a stakeholder situated somewhere above my marginal niche in the larger world of book culture, I’d wager that your fingerprints are probably on some books that many people – perhaps I? – will find offensive. And when the would-be censors rattle, I’m guessing you know just where you stand. You might write the occasional check to the ACLU, or maybe you attend the annual “Banned Books Week” events at the local library. Or, if you’re of a certain age, you may even have been a signatory when the Association of American Publishers and other groups protested the decision of a once-ubiquitous bookstore chain not to sell copies of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. I thought that was a good move, by the way. A proud moment for the AAP. And I sincerely believe that those of us who devote our lives to books have had quite a few good moments over the centuries. Whatever our differences, we belong to a tradition that has from the beginning stood for the liberal advancement of knowledge and human understanding. As publishers and as readers, we’re guided by an ethos that runs from the broadsides of Martin Luther to the trials of Henry Miller. If there’s anything to the notion of being on the “right side of history,” publishers have set the odds. Thus I am addressing this “open letter” to you, my fellow publishers and book mavens. And now that I’ve done my worst to butter you up, I mean to draw your attention to a recent event that has received little above-ground media coverage but that I think should be of profound concern to all publishers, not just naughty pipsqueaks like me. Specifically, I am referring to the decision of Amazon.com, which is now the world’s largest book retailer, to discontinue the sale of dozens of books that promote, or are said to promote, Holocaust denial. This policy seems to have taken full effect on March 8, 2017, and a bit of Googling convinces me that it was in large part a capitulation to mounting pressure from presumably well-intentioned people who vocally objected to the content – if not the mere the existence – of such literature. In a communication to Castle Hill Publishers, the primary target of the delisting (or ban), Amazon justified its decision with a vague reference to a “content guidelines” violation. Now, I understand that this is not the first time Amazon has taken the measure of removing material from its catalog for ostensibly content-oriented reasons, and for what it’s worth I have been troubled by such other instances of “soft” censorship that have come to my attention – whether they have targeted pederasty manuals or conspiracy books or divisive symbols. On some past occasions I have written polite letters to the corporate offices to express my consumer-minded objection. I haven’t cancelled my Prime membership, and I do not intend to stop selling 9BB titles on Amazon as long as my books are welcome there. Nevertheless, I do think this recent move represents a radical departure from Amazon’s longstanding and genuinely admirable (however imperfect) “open court” approach to bookselling. By focusing not on specific books of arguably questionable legal status but on an entire category of dissident literature, Amazon has embraced a chilling and illiberal precedent. Publishers of potentially controversial books should take immediate notice, but this is bad news for all who value and benefit from the free and open exchange of ideas. To be very clear, I do not think public objection, no matter how strongly or widely registered, should weigh against a market-dominant bookseller’s core commitment to content-neutrality in the sale of literature. If you agree, then I urge you to speak out. Contact Amazon and tell them to reject censorship. Tell them to reinstate the laisser passer policy that has served publishers and readers well over the years. Tell them not to police the content of books. Tell them not to ban books. Tell them to revisit this misguided decision. Tell them to let their customers alone decide what books they wish to purchase and read. For me, it’s as simple as that. At this point, however, I imagine that some of you will not be persuaded that I have identified an issue of real and urgent importance. Given my stature and questionable reputation, you may even suspect my motives. You may be inclined to simply ignore my pleading, just as you might ignore a book bearing the hallmarks of a vanity press. But if you’re still reading, I hope you will continue to indulge me just the same, if only for the next few minutes. I will try to anticipate and address your objections in order to clarify a message that should not be confused with the messenger. I know I’m tilting at windmills here, but I really think this is an ominous turn and I’m troubled that reliable free speech advocates haven’t spoken out. OK, then. Perhaps you will say that this is just another isolated episode and there is little reason to worry over further ramifications for decent publishers who do not make it their business to associate with loathsome people who engage in mendacious pseudo-scholarship. I’ll concede it’s possible that you’re right about that much, at least in the sense that Castle Hill Publishers and sundry other small imprints may be where the blacklist stops. I’ve certainly heard from people who believe that Holocaust denial (or Holocaust revisionism, as it used to be called) represents a sui generis deviation from ordinary intellectual discourse. People who invoke this line of argument can get downright metaphysical about it, but it’s conceivable that the folks who pull the levers at Amazon believe they have broken a lance with truly and uniquely evil forces. I think there are serious problems with this view. To begin with, it assumes that human motives are predictably bound by circumstance and by specific information. That just isn’t so. I won’t doubt that your footing is secure, but consider how easily variants of the term “denier” have come to be applied to myriad species of contentious intellectual inquiry. Perhaps those who are said to “deny” climate science, to mention one of many possible examples, can be clearly distinguished in your mind from those who “deny” the scholarly consensus concerning the history of events that took place during the Second World War, but can you be confident that the most passionate environmentalists will toe that line? Are you sure? And if you think “genocide denial” is the full-stop transgression at issue, I’m afraid you’ll be left to tread carefully over the variegated literature that could be next in line for scrutiny. Here, it is worth noting that the esteemed historian Bernard Lewis has been sanctioned for denying the Armenian genocide, and one needn’t look far to identify books that are said deny other historical genocides – in Nanjing, Tasmania, Ukraine, Cambodia, etc. Indeed, the case has often been made that many canonical histories of “Manifest Destiny” in the United States deny or whitewash the genocide of Native Americans. Do such and other comparisons amount to “false equivalence”? That’s a question for the jury. My point is simply that there is always the possibility that what you see as a bright line will not be so sharply delineated to other minds. If you look closer, you may notice a deeper problem: When we define any point of view as being uniquely evil, we erect a logical fundament that can, and eventually will, be used to justify less innocuous forms of censorship, including such forms that come under the onus of law. Click the lens back a few notches and I hope we can agree, perhaps with an ironic wink, that a very human tendency to anathematize ideas (and by extension, the people who express them) has fueled grave injustices throughout recorded history. If you think I’m indulging in hyperbole for present purposes, please do keep in mind that Germar Rudolf, the man who runs Castle Hill Publishers, has spent several years of his life in prison for writing and distributing some of the very same books that Amazon has now effectively banned. He isn’t alone. Anyway, let’s assume that the dozens of books that have been placed on Amazon’s blacklist are indeed there for the stated reason that they violate some specifiable clause – a “content guideline” – nested somewhere in a standard vendor contract. If this is so, doesn’t it seem reasonable that a publisher, on receiving this information, might expect to be directed toward the specific content that triggered the violation, if for no other reason than to avoid breaching it in the future? I would think so. It might even be a legal requirement. Yet with reference to the dozens of delisted titles published by Castle Hill Publishers, it does not appear that any specific content was cited. By reference to circumstantial information we might assume that the content-violating books were selected simply because they espouse Holocaust denial, but this assumption is complicated by the fact that some of the books banned by name have little or nothing to do with this presumably proscribed subject. (A list of affected titles published by Castle Hill Publishers appends this letter, if you want to judge for yourself; one of them consists of little more than a court transcript.) This reliance on fine-print legalese is another reason to suspect that the slope is indeed slippery, and of special importance to other publishers whose output will always be subject to contractual scrutiny and consequent rejection. It isn’t at all difficult to conjure a list of well-respected scholars and writers who have exposited ideas that might run afoul of a legal clause that can be invoked at whim, or in response to public pressure. Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens have proffered strong words in defense of dissident historians, and a case can be made that they’ve gotten their hands dirty in the process. Should their books be subject to contractual review? How about Norman Finkelstein? Howard Zinn? Nicholson Baker? Pat Buchanan? Malcolm X? I know of an angry mob that would like nothing more than to see Charles Murray’s entire bibliography flushed down the memory hole, perhaps by dint of just such a clause. If I’m told that “canary in a coal mine” arguments are out of fashion these days, I’m just as sure that some of you are by now chomping at the bit to remind me that Amazon is, after all, a private corporation that can sell – or not sell – whatever books it pleases. Notwithstanding contractual issues that lawyers might be inclined to chew over, let me assure you that I agree. This is not a First Amendment issue. It is, however, an issue that cuts at the very fiber of such values that have permitted true freedom of speech to flourish since the time of the Enlightenment. In abandoning content-neutrality, Amazon has disturbed foundational principles that serve to facilitate genuine critical inquiry before and after a statute is tolled. What’s really at stake is a matter, as John Stuart Mill would remind us, “of the liberty of thought and discussion.” It’s about freedom of inquiry in the operative sense that has always mattered. The bedrock seemed firm enough when the publishers’ guild took Waldenbooks to task nearly three decades ago, when a fatwa hung over the chorus. I submit that the issue before us now differs in no essential respect, especially when we recall that many of the targeted authors have been prosecuted and imprisoned for their words. While I do feel fortunate to make my residence in a country that aspires to protect freedom of the press as a matter of ultimate judicial appeal, this bulwark against government interference is no substitute for the core principles that undergird an open society. I fear this crucial distinction has been too easily lost in the frenzy of a cultural moment that perpetuates partisan conflict and enmity over reasoned discourse. Thus I have nothing to add to the relevant insights so carefully articulated by Mill in the second chapter of his classic treatise, On Liberty. I do hope you will take a few minutes to read it in its entirety, even if you’ve read it before. It isn’t very long, and it sheds brilliant light on every transcendent point I wish to stress. Here is a crucial excerpt that was recently cited by my friend Sarah Perry in an online essay called “Why Is Freedom of Speech Important?,” which I also recommend. "The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion….Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. This is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of, else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. "Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition, even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavored to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil’s advocate can conjure up." By blacklisting books that support or promote dissident historical interpretation in one problematic realm, Amazon has merely impeded the process of critical engagement that remains a conditional prerequisite in the broader societal quest for truth and understanding. Those who mean to sharpen their counterpoint will be left at a disadvantage, being effectively shielded from the “whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter...” The rest of us are left to contemplate an implacable irony: As we quarantine the expression of arguments that are widely presumed to be meretricious, we strengthen perforce the perception that such arguments cannot withstand critical scrutiny. Meanwhile, the books and the arguments will continue to exist, cloaked as they will be in an aura of taboo that for some will suggest the shimmering truth of a guarded secret. A bad argument will eventually perish in the light of day; it is in darkness that it thrives. If one should yet rejoin that Mill’s analysis could not have anticipated the enormity of the threat posed by denialist literature, I will leave you with the sober words of the preeminent Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg, who perfectly grasped the point that now eludes our intellectual gatekeepers: "If these people want to speak, let them. It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that’s useful for us. I have quoted Eichmann references that come from a neo-Nazi publishing house. I am not for taboos and I am not for repression." Once again, I encourage you to contact the men and women who govern the world’s largest bookstore. Remind them of their unique position. Tell them to allow the full cacophony of voices to sing in the sunlight. Tell them that true freedom of speech demands nothing less. Thank you for your time and attention. Happy reading to all. Chip Smith Editor | Publisher Nine-Banded Books
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:What joke
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:An Open Letter to Publishers and Readers (snip 1 zillion words) Just to keep it on-topic, the current top tweet on @NineBandedBooks is a Julia Galef retweet. HOW DO THE FAR-RIGHT AND THE RATIONALISTS KEEP CROSSING OVER, TRULY THE WAYS OF SHEER COINCIDENCE ARE INEFFABLE
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
divabot posted:HOW DO THE FAR-RIGHT AND THE RATIONALISTS KEEP CROSSING OVER, TRULY THE WAYS OF SHEER COINCIDENCE ARE INEFFABLE When you construct an actually good and decent morality, your greatest foes will be the most vile shitbags and the most clueless nerds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
quote:It may seem difficult to understand the realities of the blackpill. It may be hard to come to terms with how - and why - the world functions as it does. And even when you do, it is even harder to understand where to go next.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
TinTower posted:In other words, sexual inequality comes before economic inequality, and due to how intertwined they are, it means that economic inequality is a consequence of sexual inequality due to society's constant preference for Chad. Sexual inequality predates economic capitalism, feudalism, even primitive tribalism - sexual inequality is the original and eternal form of hierarchy, it is harbinger of all other inequalities in other areas. "It is I, the straight man, who is the real oppressed minority! My inability to get a date is the reason for every other problem in my life."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Lemniscate Blue posted:So is he proposing sexual communism? Seize the means of reproduction? LOOK WHAT YOU DID
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Scott has finally responded to Charlottesville, (tucked away in an open thread so it isn't 15000 words for once) http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/27/ot83-slippery-slopen-thread/ Scott Alexander posted:I’ve been getting a lot of questions about whether I still endorse my old post “You Are Still Crying Wolf” in light of recent events. I’m not up for causing more controversy right now, so I’ll hide this here instead of writing a full post, but the short answer is: yes. If this ever changes, I’ll put it on my Mistakes page – if you don’t see it there, I still endorse it. I don’t think anything has changed significantly since I wrote it. Trump continues to condemn white nationalism; his opponents continue to condemn his condemnations as insincere or not good enough. White nationalism continues to be a tiny movement with a low-four-digit number of organized adherents, smaller than eg the Satanists; people continue to act as if it’s a gigantic and important social force. I don’t want to get drawn into another ten thousand words on this, but you can probably piece together where I’m coming from from some of the following: this estimate of about 500 people at the Charlottesville rally; this estimate of about 1100 people at a recent Satanic rally, this poll showing more blacks and Latinos agree with the white supremacist movement than whites do (probably a polling error based on random noise; my point is that the real level of support is literally unmeasurably low), the constant Obama-era claims that Obama’s half-hearted condemnations of Islamic terrorism proved he was a secret Muslim, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), and this analysis of Trump’s completely unprincipled and stupid way of deciding what opinions to have on things. I continue to think crying wolf is a major danger, with the worst-case scenario being a sort of repeat of the War On Terror, where rampant fear of terrorism (even in the general absence of any real threat) transformed our society and our politics for the worse in various ways. And as always, I continue to believe that Trump is a terrible person and a terrible President, and that any attention we focus away from his gaffes should be redirected to all the terrible laws and policies he’s promoting. Apparently it's fine, it was only a small amount of nazis and trumps response (condemned by a ton of republicans) was just a "gaffe" and this is all hysteria like the Obama secret muslim thing and anyway the bigger threat is leftists
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Skittle Prickle posted:Scott has finally responded to Charlottesville, (tucked away in an open thread so it isn't 15000 words for once) When a pet theory is definitively proven wrong by real world evidence, it's always important to double down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 13:52
|
|
