|
Goldskull posted:Toblerowns. Dammit, why didn’t I think of this?! Edit: 46 is the atomic number of Palladium, which is also a theatre in London that I saw Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat at five times in the early 90s, with Jason Donovan in the lead. Camrath fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Feb 9, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
The pretzel one is real yummy too, and hey you're already there with the fun name. I thought a cherry bakewell would be a good flavour for fudge, have you tried that already?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Deketh posted:The pretzel one is real yummy too, and hey you're already there with the fun name. I’m planning a cherry/amaretto for the near future which will achieve the same basic effect 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:But it's a pretty clear example of how fame almost inevitably turns you lib - because you get substantially richers very quickly, and you start hanging out with all these media types who are all lib as gently caress, and you forget what youre supposed to be about because they are all telling you you should and nobody's telling you you shouldn't. I think in a lot of cases it comes down to firmly held and well understood beliefs. Sayle's podcast brings up his parents anarchist beliefs and many discussions around the subject with them and with other people growing up. Lee brings up the welfare payments and university grants many of his contemporaries relied on living in squats. And then on the other hand you have people who are engaging with politics only at a surface level. People who want to be 'good people' without really understanding the philosophy of what makes someone good, or what makes a political stance harmful or beneficial. Those types are the most dangerous, because they're the ones who get sucked into things like terf lovebombing and the antisemitism row. Baddiel's entire book is a discourse he should have had with experts in race theory rather than looping it round his own fear of Corbyn and then dumping it onto the page. I feel like the turning point for a lot of people though is fear of losing the life they have. I'm not just talking about the dinner parties and creature comforts, I mean in Lee's case there's parts of his interview with Owen Jones where he very much gives off an "I've got kids to think about now" vibe. I'm not criticising him for that; I now own my own house (mother in law died of cancer, we can barely afford it), and the idea that Rachel Riley could sue me and take it away if I spoke out about her being a poo poo scares me into not wanting to do it too loudly. Like I can't just say "gently caress it, if you bankrupt me I'll scream at you from the streets" because my wife would be devastated if we lost this place. The Question IRL posted:Frankie Boyle has made jokes about Olympic Swimmers, the Queen, the Israeli army, people with Downs Syndrome and Jordan's son Harvey without being black balled from the industry. Maybe he just invested his Mock the Week earnings wisely and can afford not to work so much now, but exposure wise his career is nowhere near as close to the mainstream as it used to be. suck my woke dick posted:The result is that either you end up with hyper specialised vocational training without context, or you rush through a cliff notes version of all the things you're supposed to know without ever stopping to gain experience and understand anything beyond a surface level. A lot of places use a F.O.F.O. approach to learning, i.e. gently caress Off and Find Out. Lecturers will explain to you the problems a field is facing, and it's then up to the student to go read up on the discussions about those problems. They insist that a degree course is an intellectual exploration around a subject, not a how-to guide. Which would be fine, if you didn't need a degree to get any kind of job nowadays and universities weren't doing this with journalism degrees. The other problem is that the students who succeed and get firsts don't engage with an intellectual exploration. The essays are marked by the lecturers and they're marked subjectively, so If you want to game the marking systems, you ingratiate yourself with the lecturer during the seminar, you find out what their opinion is, and then you fluff out a justification of why they're right. It's a system that selects for bullshitters and yes men, and pumps out high-mark students who have no idea what the hell they're doing, only how to do what they think everyone else wants. I feel likecKeef is the the pinnacle of this process. He has no ideology, je hasn't done the reading, and he just wants to do whatever will get people off his back. Camrath posted:My wife would put me against the wall herself. Camrath posted:Dammit, why didn’t I think of this?! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Camrath posted:Dammit, why didn’t I think of this?! Use it for the next batch. But put a little Copyright ©Goldskull 2021 next to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Public toblerownership
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:And then on the other hand you have people who are engaging with politics only at a surface level. People who want to be 'good people' without really understanding the philosophy of what makes someone good, or what makes a political stance harmful or beneficial. Those types are the most dangerous, because they're the ones who get sucked into things like terf lovebombing and the antisemitism row.  Bobby Deluxe posted:It's even worse than that, especially on BA courses. A lot of universities look down on 'mere' vocational colleges and as a consequence refuse to straight up train people in how to do say journalism or creative writing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CrimLawJustice/status/1359127638711926786?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Goldskull posted:Use it for the next batch. But put a little Copyright ©Goldskull 2021 next to it. I’m afraid that this Bobby Deluxe posted:Public toblerownership Is even better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
His great-granddad fabricated an entire academic discipline to avoid addressing sex assault MPs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It's even worse than that, especially on BA courses. A lot of universities look down on 'mere' vocational colleges and as a consequence refuse to straight up train people in how to do say journalism or creative writing. For most law schools, there's been a push in recent years to move towards more vocational training (because the route to qualification is changing, there's a huge argument to be had about that so I won't go into it). The problem is, as multiple posters have pointed out, there's actually gently caress all time on an undergraduate degree to go into much detail on anything, and a poo poo tonne of stuff that has to be included because the Law Society decrees it. What that means is, there's no time to actually go into anything in detail. For one thing, that's not actually much use vocationally, because a lot of this poo poo is complicated: someone who knows the basic rules in 100 situations doesn't know the actual rules in any, whereas someone who's been taught one thing in detail knows that one thing, but - more importantly - going into detail lets us teach them how to research, analyse, and apply the law, so that they can deal with the other 99 situations when they come up. But, a more conceptual concern is that it's likely to produce an entire generation of lawyers who know what the law is, but have no idea why that's what it is, or what it is supposed to do, which considering these are the people who are going to be shaping the common law in the years to come is a fairly lovely situation imo. Bobby Deluxe posted:Which would be fine, if you didn't need a degree to get any kind of job nowadays There's a much broader argument to be had about the point of higher education. I don't think it'll be that controversial in the UKMT to say that the point of uni should not be to turn everyone into good little capitalists. Education for education's own sake is good. Broadening people's minds is good, learning about how the world works just because you want to is good, and if we want to shape a better world we're drat well gonna need people who actually like to think about poo poo. The Tories would loving love it if universities turned into job training factories, which imo makes it fairly safe to assume that that would be bad. Bobby Deluxe posted:The other problem is that the students who succeed and get firsts don't engage with an intellectual exploration. The essays are marked by the lecturers and they're marked subjectively, so If you want to game the marking systems, you ingratiate yourself with the lecturer during the seminar, you find out what their opinion is, and then you fluff out a justification of why they're right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:Acaster had Jessflaps on his podcast. Even her selection is poo poo and predictable. Of course she'd go with a full English. Thats what her whole image is about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I wonder what it is that prevents certain celebs from going down that route though. As mentioned Stuart Lee still seems OK based on the last 2 interviews I heard (Owen Jones and Adam Buxton's podcasts), and Alexei Sayle is still absolutely on the right side of everything. Neither of those people are famous even on the level of The Last Leg or Mock the Week, though. Proably BECAUSE they refused to conform, at least in part. You either fall into obscurity a hero, or stay famous long enough to become a villain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:My brother was banging on about Off Menu for ages and when I finally did give it a listen I really enjoyed it, but I remember scrolling through the feed, seeing Jessflaps name pop up and going noooope. I really like Off Menu but it's one of those that's far better if you just pick and choose the episodes with guests who actually interest you. There are quite a few I've not heard of so I don't get much out of hearing whether they prefer poppadoms or bread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:
I did that in my surveying degree (before I changed to the Postgrad diploma which hadn't been available when I started), I found out one of the lecturers had a penchant for historical building techniques so when we were tasked with writing an essay on various building components, I looked up (manually - no internet and google in those days) some of the things he'd written about and wrote an exploration of reinforced concrete during Roman times. Got very high marks from that particular lecturer for evermore. The ingratiating method of mark boosting is much harder to do with physics or maths degrees!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I watched the 2019 election results in Momentum HQ with Mark Steele and he was as devastated as any of us, so he’ll always be a good egg in my book. When Mark Steel is on the Bugle he's always incandescent with burn the Tory rage. A definite good egg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:My brother was banging on about Off Menu for ages and when I finally did give it a listen I really enjoyed it, but I remember scrolling through the feed, seeing Jessflaps name pop up and going noooope. Full English, but none of them Heinz Beanz - supermarket own-brand is good enough for me!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/1359113830643757056?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:As an academic lawyer, I take some umbrage at this. Borrovan posted:There's a much broader argument to be had about the point of higher education. I don't think it'll be that controversial in the UKMT to say that the point of uni should not be to turn everyone into good little capitalists. Education for education's own sake is good. Broadening people's minds is good, learning about how the world works just because you want to is good, and if we want to shape a better world we're drat well gonna need people who actually like to think about poo poo. The Tories would loving love it if universities turned into job training factories, which imo makes it fairly safe to assume that that would be bad. The problem is that currently, you do need a degree to get a decent job, or a job at all in certain fields. In some cases like law or teacher training, the degree is mandated by the organising body, in other cases like journalism it's just convention, and some jobs like recruitment consultant just want any degree to break into the kind of pay you might be able to live off in a capitalist hellscape. And with the example of creative writing (the course I did), there was very little discussion of the mechanics of how to correctly structure a sentence, ease of readability, contacting agents and publishers, the basics of rhetoric, anything like that. It was all writing about writing, and has qualified me to speak authoratively about writing while having zero published projects under my belt apart from a few bits of amazon smut. Any practical advice was given almost as an aside by lecturers With journalism, I have heard from people who were on the course at my uni that it was the exact same thing - they did a lot of studying how the media influences the public, writing about the history of journalism, ethical theories etc, but very little of how to do it, how to investigate, how to structure an article, how to write persuasively. And again, that's absolutely fine for an intellectual exploration of things. If I'd known it was going to be like that I might have done politics or philosophy which lend themselves better to that kind of structure. But undergrads are being told they need a degree - not vocational training - to get a job in journalism. So they do the degree, they learn no practical skills except how to bullshit the person above them in their hierarchy, and then are expected to be able to excel at a job they have not been trained to do. It's hosed. I know it probably seems like I had the opposite opinion to you, but I don't think university degrees should be needed to get a job in that field, and I think there should be more vocational qualifications that the relevant industries respect and adhere to, leaving universities free to be the centre of intellectual inquiry they should be. Borrovan posted:Citation needed, most marking is done by fairly large teams (often including a bunch of postgrads who get roped in) so a student doesn't have any idea who's marking it. Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/McfeeFanny/status/1359132850872795136?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Wait Ken Loach is 'controversial'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Wait Ken Loach is 'controversial'? He's left wing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
CancerCakes posted:The last leg is peak liberal the truth is somewhere in the middle, beyond even south park. It had some decent moments, but when they shifted from Paralympic coverage to general politics it got bad. They has Anna Soubry on and were tonguing her arsehole. Not one of the hosts - 2 of whom are disabled, and the show started as a Paralympics coverage show - thought to ask her about her terrible voting record on disability benefits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Wait Ken Loach is 'controversial'? Bobby Deluxe fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Well that all sounds perfectly agreeable. Here was me shaping up for a fight 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
Posting bad takes from The JC is shooting fish in a barrel. It's just another far-right rag, except with the gimmick of claiming to speak for an entire religion in order to deflect criticism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:The ingratiating method of mark boosting is much harder to do with physics or maths degrees! "i really like the number 8, so tend to be more lenient on answers including it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Inexplicable Humblebrag posted:"i really like the number 8, so tend to be more lenient on answers including it" Failing your stats coursework because you drew your bar chart with confidence intervals and your lecturer is a Bayesian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
stev posted:I really like Off Menu but it's one of those that's far better if you just pick and choose the episodes with guests who actually interest you. There are quite a few I've not heard of so I don't get much out of hearing whether they prefer poppadoms or bread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I wonder what it is that prevents certain celebs from going down that route though. As mentioned Stuart Lee still seems OK based on the last 2 interviews I heard (Owen Jones and Adam Buxton's podcasts), and Alexei Sayle is still absolutely on the right side of everything. Don't know if you are genuinely asking or whether this is insightful, but the reason is most likely that us humans create our "rationality" ex-post - making our supposed preferences and explanations fit a certain interpretation of events. So, it's not necessarily just people being good or bad, it is also related to what consistent explanations are available. We generally detest randomness. These positive examples probably have some other valid reason in their mind as to why they became famous. Most importantly, positive feedback ultimately (for the average person) gives credence and legitimization to the system that produces such feedback. For example, people who get promoted, people who exhibit fame, people who get points on internet boards or gain status or even (just to be balanced) get traction by lefty-shitposting on twitter will understand feedback as legitimization of the thing at hand. It's not just vanity, though, it's also something that protects us humans psychically from the necessity to be hyper-rational at all times. Being rational is actually quite depressing, so we tend not to do it. James March and Herb Simon are good people to read for the implications of this. Edit: No reason not to read James March tbh even if you detest economists. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Failing your stats coursework because you drew your bar chart with confidence intervals and your lecturer is a Bayesian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:They've learned how to use dog whistles. Jewish paper calls him controversial -> left-wing -> Corbyn -> antisemitism. Oh, you don't need to stretch that far. Loach is pro-Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:If you didn't even account for the probability that the person marking would be a Bayesian do you really deserve to pass? or confuse the terms likelihood and probability
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Being rational is actually quite depressing, so we tend not to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
Payndz posted:One of my friends made the observation on Facebook that "any time someone gets angry and rants about something being 'woke', remember that it's effectively a synonym for 'decent'." This is exactly how I have been presenting it to otherwise decent, but not naturally lefty, people. The desired outcome of wokeness is everyone being treated decently by their own standards. I’ve found this framing useful with people from hardcore libertarians to boring Tories to committedly “apolitical” liberals. Which is perhaps a reminder that actions can be bad and views can be wrong, but very few people are intrinsically rotten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Just lol if anyone thinks that's the reason why we don't do it itt it's not the only reason. Of course we can't be rational so we gotta use heuristics etc. etc. Yeah we all know that one. But for the question op asked, it's actually far more interesting to realize we might not actually want to be rational, not even try to go into that direction. We'd rather construct our rational world after the fact. The former is a deficiency of humans, the latter is whether rationality is actually desirable from an organizational or societal standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1359198526421532672
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Posting bad takes from The JC is shooting fish in a barrel. It's just another far-right rag, except with the gimmick of claiming to speak for an entire religion in order to deflect criticism. It's worse than that. It's actively demoralizing. Bad faith arguments meant to disparage everything the left stands for, directly into our brains. It's not something that will spur discussion or that anyone can do anything about. It's just gibberish by the media class which is currently a cult dedicated to centre-right politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Haramstufe Rot posted:Don't know if you are genuinely asking or whether this is insightful, but the reason is most likely that us humans create our "rationality" ex-post - making our supposed preferences and explanations fit a certain interpretation of events. So, it's not necessarily just people being good or bad, it is also related to what consistent explanations are available. Are there any articles on the evidence for this? Most people would generally disagree that they do this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
IIRC the “strong” theory of cognition is that we are all actually P-zombies and all our brains do is rationalise ex post facto to convince our conscious minds that there was a reason behind what we just did. Whereas the “weak” theory is the same but we can maybe plan ahead sometimes. E: to be clear this is my half remembered mishmash of books and articles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2021 19:17
|
|