|
BigRed0427 posted:Yeah...drat, Contra is getting to? I shouldn't be shocked but... Anyone who's ardently anti-Nazi is now on a hit list, if they're popular enough. Hell, someone tried to kill Kurt Eichenwald, who's a center-left at best, by sending him videos with seizure-inducing material embedded. This is where we are now. This is the lovely space in which we fight. As for the video, I'm pretty much on board with the interrogation of both sides. Liberals can be fair-weather friends, just dying to sit down with enemy and engage in endless rounds of discourse™, because only the facade matters, and not the ideology underneath. In many cases, this is because they're wealthy or white enough to avoid the worst repercussions of the coming fascist shitstorm, but in some cases it's because they've been taught over and over again that non-violence, respectability, professionalism and facts move things forward. They're not wrong in that this is how things ought to work in a sane society (experts and facts should have a stronger bearing on all forms of decision-making), but we don't live in one of those. Educating the liberal involves snapping them out of their thinly-held shell of respectability and even-mindedness, and forcing them to actually realize that those in the business of exterminating minorities mean business. Harder leftists can be alienating nonsense-spewers unsympathetic to the idea that you even need to convince anyone that they're better off joining the revolution (especially given the historical hiccoughs). Who the hell is going to be convinced by dialectical materialism if they think high taxes and basic services like libraries are communism? One of the biggest lessons to come out of the last few years is that the public is dumb as gently caress and that the packaging matters. Call something a "social service" and it's the red scare. Call something a "public option" and suddenly it has wide-ranging public support. The right has masterfully rebranded literally every piece of basic sanity as communism. You're not really going to fight them by offering not only something as alien as Marxism, but something that has such an inherent amount of historical and cultural baggage (not in those words anyway). This isn't an argument that we on the left need to dilute or abandon our message, just that positioning and public opinion matter... when you're trying to win the support of the public! Pembroke Fuse fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Sep 25, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 04:10
|
|
. THeres another Trans Artists, the girl that does Manic Pixie Nightmare Girl, who's getting her Facebook false flagged, to the point that Facebook ahs warned her that if it keeps happening shes going to be kicked off it for good. gently caress, I wanna do more to keep this poo poo from happening but I dont know what.
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
fallenturtle posted:If there was some sort of agreement set up that he'll get X for doing Y, then yes, he is owed that compensation. Wrong again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Contra's cool but at the same I hate all skits in YouTube reviews and critiques so I will never watch their videos
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:These criticisms of PDP and Notch seem to be more criticisms of capitalism since its capitalism that allows for them to be paid what the market thinks their work is worth and not what their critics think its worth. ding ding ding ding ding!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Your feel good article of the day. Apparently, wingnuts are finding it difficult to sock it to leftist, anti-free speech platforms like Youtube because nobody wants to follow these douches to specifically tailored alt-right platforms:quote:Luke Rudkowski, who leads an organization that perpetuates 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theories and has almost half a million YouTube subscribers, said the far right was witnessing "the beginning of the YouTube purge" that would result in the "end times of this beautiful and amazing platform." quote:Other users have begun trying to build followings on YouTube alternatives, but they seem to have persuaded only a fraction of their audiences to follow their videos. http://www.businessinsider.com/far-right-tech-platforms-gab-youtube-bitchute-2017-9 More at the link.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Your feel good article of the day. Apparently, wingnuts are finding it difficult to sock it to leftist, anti-free speech platforms like Youtube because nobody wants to follow these douches to specifically tailored alt-right platforms: that doesnt surprise me. the mainstream companies/advertisers were sick of their bullshit for a while and now after charlottesville its open season on alt right clowns and the companies are happy to oblige.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:These criticisms of PDP and Notch seem to be more criticisms of capitalism since its capitalism that allows for them to be paid what the market thinks their work is worth and not what their critics think its worth. Yes. I directly stated such in an earlier post. Thanks for catching up to the conversation Mr Interweb posted:Your feel good article of the day. Apparently, wingnuts are finding it difficult to sock it to leftist, anti-free speech platforms like Youtube because nobody wants to follow these douches to specifically tailored alt-right platforms: Can't wait for them to all make the move then the website to fall apart because lol libertarian/right-wing guys can't run websites for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Yeah I was never able to finish the Contrapoints dysphoria video. It was uncomfortable to watch which I'm sure is the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
While that article is good news, keep in mind that YouTube has also been demonitzing LGBT content for a while now. Even people like Tyler Oakley haven't been safe from it. Demonetization doesn't just mean you don't get ad money either, there's a chance your videos no longer appear on search results in youtube. And of course, youtube's terrible community mod tools allowing Nazis to get videos they don't like pulled all together.Glagha posted:Yeah I was never able to finish the Contrapoints dysphoria video. It was uncomfortable to watch which I'm sure is the point. Yeah, buts it's also so accurate. BigRed0427 fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Sep 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Don't mistake YouTube as leftist, by the way. The demonitization train has hit alot of independent leftist news, current affairs and political discussion channels pretty hard too. Want to discuss the war in Syria? Police shootings of black people? Socialist alternatives to the current state of affais? LGBT rights and activism? No money for you. Many such programs have turned to Patreon for survival. I think it's written somewhere in their appeals guidelines that all programming should now be suitable for viewing by children 5 years of age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
I feel like a company that makes money stuffing advertisements onto other people's content is possibly the polar opposite of leftist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
PUblic service announcement: Social Media platforms are not your friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:As for the video, I'm pretty much on board with the interrogation of both sides. Liberals can be fair-weather friends, just dying to sit down with enemy and engage in endless rounds of discourse™, because only the facade matters, and not the ideology underneath. In many cases, this is because they're wealthy or white enough to avoid the worst repercussions of the coming fascist shitstorm, but in some cases it's because they've been taught over and over again that non-violence, respectability, professionalism and facts move things forward. They're not wrong in that this is how things ought to work in a sane society (experts and facts should have a stronger bearing on all forms of decision-making), but we don't live in one of those. Educating the liberal involves snapping them out of their thinly-held shell of respectability and even-mindedness, and forcing them to actually realize that those in the business of exterminating minorities mean business. I might be repeating myself, but part of the problem with the liberals and centrists in regards to this anti-fascist battle is that they have a high threshold when it comes to willingness to promote violence and to them problems with fascism in the US are but small blips on a radar and have not reached the threshold. OwlFancier posted:Wrong again. Contracts mean nothing? ZenMasterBullshit posted:Yes. I directly stated such in an earlier post. Thanks for catching up to the conversation BigRed0427 posted:NEW CONTRA POINTS! I think she nailed it when it comes to the pros and cons of Antifa. The public is unaware of most of the good things Antifa does (like seeking out and doxxing Nazis). But if you have enough protesters show up, then maybe you don't need to engage in violence. And also stop breaking windows and lighting poo poo on fire... its a failed form of protest because the intended message gets lost in translation and is instead viewed as random vandalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:Contracts mean nothing? In opposition to the need for redistribution? Yes. Without question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In opposition to the need for redistribution? Yes. Without question. I suspect we won't see eye to eye on this one, so its best we move on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Unless you're an ancap the notion that there are some things you cannot put in a contract should not be alien to you, the disagreement is merely correctly identifying the intolerable injustice of wealth inequality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
I support lowering wealth inequality through taxation. I also believe that if a contract is signed between two parties where party A will provide compensation for a service or product provided by party B and B provides said product or service, then they are owed that compensation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Then the question becomes again, why bother with the assumption that simply seizing wealth is not the most desirable course and why bother to make the offer not to do so?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Contra is good, her new vid is good, anyone that has a problem with it probably needs the critical self-reflection the video promotes - hard or center left. Say what you will about the left's fractious nature and tendency towards infighting - traditionally we are at least capable of looking inward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
contra is really good and her new video is as well
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:I support lowering wealth inequality through taxation. I also believe that if a contract is signed between two parties where party A will provide compensation for a service or product provided by party B and B provides said product or service, then they are owed that compensation. It's a ridiculous amount of money and no single person should be "owed" that, even to be redistributed through taxes. Just because someone makes a contract for something doesn't make it reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then the question becomes again, why bother with the assumption that simply seizing wealth is not the most desirable course and why bother to make the offer not to do so? I'm afraid I may not be following... Who's making the "offer not to do so"? Avenging_Mikon posted:It's a ridiculous amount of money and no single person should be "owed" that, even to be redistributed through taxes. Just because someone makes a contract for something doesn't make it reasonable. I'm not arguing all contracts are inherently reasonable. But when it comes to contracts between private parties, as long as there is no foul-play, coercion, laws being broke, or a monopoly, I think what those of us outside of the agreement consider unreasonable is moot. Microsoft must have found that it was a reasonable amount to pay for Minecraft and Notch must have agreed as well, otherwise no deal would have been made. fallenturtle fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:contra is really good and her new video is as well Half right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:no fowl-play I agree, I think it's outrageous when contracts include clauses regarding chickens playing basketball. There should be a law!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
fallenturtle posted:Contracts mean nothing? You're mixing up legality and morality. People can and do agree to unfair/unjust contracts out of necessity. But more broadly speaking the easiest way to deal with this problem is to just institute an extremely high effective tax rate (that in particular would include a high capital gains tax and high wealth tax). The wealth tax in particular is important, because ultimately most inequality is in the form of wealth/assets rather than income. A wealth tax is basically the same thing as "seizing wealth", just slowly over time. Other taxes only decrease the rate at which a person accrues wealth, but wealth taxes actually directly take from their "coffers" so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsIz5aQY-M So this is probably the best interview with that Google guy that I've seen so far. The interviewer holds his feet to the fire and goes point by point with his criticisms. One thing I'm curious about though. When confronted by the fact that coding was a heavily female dominated industry before the 70s, Damore keeps saying that the reason for that is because those jobs weren't "actual coding" positions, but rather, more about accounting. Like most things alt-righters/alt-right curious people say, I take that with a mountain of salt, but just to give the douche the benefit of the doubt, is there any truth to this? It seems like such a weird defense regardless because, if the women coders were actually accountants, then who were the actual coders? And why would they not be mentioned in the history books?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
To believe contracts are sacred requires one to believe that the person best able to write and read legaleze inherently is deserving of a better life (more wealth) than a person less well versed in legaleze. It is something you must remember that every single time you say someone deserves more money than another person you are EXPLICITLY saying that person deserves a better life than the other person. Mr Interweb posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsIz5aQY-M
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsIz5aQY-M this is the first time I hear this guys voice, holy poo poo he sounds exactly like the oval office I thought he was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
When they instated the role of programmer to women they originally thought the academic (implied as male) would do all the thinking and the programmer would be merely transcribing, like it was a clerical task. Turns out they were wrong. Kinda like James Damore, who is demonstrably wrong about nearly everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsIz5aQY-M Terrible Opinions posted:This is patented false. The women who programmed the computers that got us to the moon weren't just moving money around. They were programming the computers that ran the rocket. He's just an idiot sexist who is making poo poo up to justify his hatred of women. maybe by "accounting", he just means crunching numbers? computers back then were like graphing calculators, only slower and the size of a truck. There was a lot more emphasis on mathematical operations and "computer science" was just starting to form as a concept. by "actual coders" I think he means the people developing search algorithms, optimizing ways to process data, stuff like that. Those people do get mentioned in computer science/engineering textbooks. They don't get mentioned in history books because the historic significance of sorting algorithms, graphics processing, etc is incredibly boring. Even when giving him the benefit of the doubt he's severely downplaying the simplicity of how easy it was to program with punchcards and overplaying the difficulty of modern programming. If he means that women programmers in the 60's were literal accountants then he's high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:maybe by "accounting", he just means crunching numbers? computers back then were like graphing calculators, only slower and the size of a truck. There was a lot more emphasis on mathematical operations and "computer science" was just starting to form as a concept. Wait, you mean that the actual formulas and algorithms were developed by male scientists/mathematicians and women just took that information and typed it up on the computer? Also, I might be wrong, but weren't most teaching professions, particularly at the university level in math and science headed up by women?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:by "actual coders" I think he means the people developing search algorithms, optimizing ways to process data, stuff like that. Those people do get mentioned in computer science/engineering textbooks. They don't get mentioned in history books because the historic significance of sorting algorithms, graphics processing, etc is incredibly boring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:When they instated the role of programmer to women they originally thought the academic (implied as male) would do all the thinking and the programmer would be merely transcribing, like it was a clerical task. Turns out they were wrong. Kinda like James Damore, who is demonstrably wrong about nearly everything. Yeah it was originally conceived as menial work inputting instructions written by someone else into the machine. Of course it's still highly technical and requires a good understanding of the device you're working with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:You're mixing up legality and morality. People can and do agree to unfair/unjust contracts out of necessity. But more broadly speaking the easiest way to deal with this problem is to just institute an extremely high effective tax rate (that in particular would include a high capital gains tax and high wealth tax). The wealth tax in particular is important, because ultimately most inequality is in the form of wealth/assets rather than income. A wealth tax is basically the same thing as "seizing wealth", just slowly over time. Other taxes only decrease the rate at which a person accrues wealth, but wealth taxes actually directly take from their "coffers" so to speak. I personally don't advocate for an extremely high tax rate, but we definitely need to be taxing wealth and assets. Terrible Opinions posted:To believe contracts are sacred requires one to believe that the person best able to write and read legaleze inherently is deserving of a better life (more wealth) than a person less well versed in legaleze. quote:It is something you must remember that every single time you say someone deserves more money than another person you are EXPLICITLY saying that person deserves a better life than the other person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
The thing is, the programmers who get paid all the big bucks now to sling code back and forth, they're not really doing truly novel work TODAY. They're still building off the shoulders of academics who put the work into the algorithms, who did the novel research. The majority of programmers (and I am one, I'm including myself here) are pulling together established work using a degree of workmanship and creativity to achieve a business goal, using the tools available to us. The women Damore looked down on in his comments only had a different job by degrees of it being a new job, and different limitations. They were just as much programmers as the male dominated programming industry is now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So this is probably the best interview with that Google guy that I've seen so far. The interviewer holds his feet to the fire and goes point by point with his criticisms. One thing I'm curious about though. When confronted by the fact that coding was a heavily female dominated industry before the 70s, Damore keeps saying that the reason for that is because those jobs weren't "actual coding" positions, but rather, more about accounting. Like most things alt-righters/alt-right curious people say, I take that with a mountain of salt, but just to give the douche the benefit of the doubt, is there any truth to this? It seems like such a weird defense regardless because, if the women coders were actually accountants, then who were the actual coders? And why would they not be mentioned in the history books? This is kind of true, but he is being deceptive about what 'accounting' actually means. My father was a programmer similar in age to Bill Gates, and he views programming as the process of simply adding 1 to bits in the memory register. His conception of a computer is shuffling 0's and 1's to different areas of memory and the computer mindlessly adds 1's. So while the computer is performing simple accounting, the programmer is very deliberately choosing how to move the numbers around and combine them in order to produce a useful output. In even earlier times, computers were closer to what we think of as calculators. So programming a computer would involve converting a hand written calculation into something machine readable and inputting it into the computer. It was more paperwork-y and accounting in nature, but it wasn't mindless work. Women had to be mathematically minded, understand how computer the worked and operated, and often hand checked the results to make sure the work was performed correctly. The women were deliberately choosing which switches to flip and buttons to press, they weren't told exactly what to do. In effect they were programming. The work required similar skills to what you would need to be a good programmer today. The only argument Damore puts forward in the interview is that biology/prenatal hormones make men more suited to work with things/objects/systems, and women with human relationships and collaboration. It still doesn't explain why women were historically suited to 'accounting' programming. Even ignoring the skills required to program, the accounting work itself seems more like a male orientated task. Once you've figured out who's working on what, and when, the bulk of the task involves male stuff: written formula, instructions, punch cards, buttons, machines etc. The larger issue is that this interview shows how little read he is on the subject, and is clearly out of his depth. If you are a smarty brained person and want to publicly espouse an informed opinion on a subject outside of your expertise, I would expect at the very least that you have an undergraduate student's understanding of the subject (a fairly low bar). Even someone who isn't academically minded, but interested in the topic would have read about the history of women in computing, scientific racism, and the sociological environment surrounding the development of the field. He should already have convincing responses to why early computing was specifically women's work, or why gender diversity is different from racial diversity. There is no good reason for why he wasn't prepared for the simplest and most common curve balls. He also does the thing where new facts that the interviewer brings up (which he is ignorant of) always confirm his argument. It doesn't matter if it is inconsistent with his views or there is no obvious extrapolation, he would rather give the impression that he is correct than to allow uncertainty or admit ignorance. The other major flaw in his argumentation is that it is riddled with quantitative fallacies. The single biological study he references must largely account for the gender disparity, and everything else that hasn't been measured or thought of aren't factors. He even discounts things which are likely factors but don't fit his argument. He has no idea how valid his argument even is, and when pressed on it his gut feeling is that prenatal hormones contribute around 50% of the gender disparity. No factual basis, no reason why it doesn't contribute 0.01%, 1%, 25%, or 100%. It's just a number he pulls out of his arse based on emotion. This is something he could have actually researched and given us a good answer to if he was in anyway honest with his views. If there is research which shows a difference in performance between genders on a psychological test, there is nothing stopping him from checking that the results are consistent with employment data. Is the disparity larger or smaller than the difference in test performance, is it consistent between workplaces, is it consistent between workplaces in different countries, etc. He is extremely lazy and dishonest in how he presents his argument, and his views aren't worthy of further consideration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:The thing is, the programmers who get paid all the big bucks now to sling code back and forth, they're not really doing truly novel work TODAY. They're still building off the shoulders of academics who put the work into the algorithms, who did the novel research. The majority of programmers (and I am one, I'm including myself here) are pulling together established work using a degree of workmanship and creativity to achieve a business goal, using the tools available to us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Here's Margaret Hamilton, lead software designer for the Apollo moon mission: The stack of books is the code. It's that thick because of all the levels of redundancy built into it. Meanwhile motherfucker works at google for a few years and thinks hes hot fuckin poo poo. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
programming was way harder back when they did it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:programming was way harder back when they did it. Real world code that needs to interact with unstable and undependable hardware is actually difficult. Googlefucker probably thinks that his CSS sheets were really hard work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 13:03
|
|
