|
I think it's part of a more general way of thinking shared by a lot of people whereby it is actually a lot easier to bend the facts around your pre-existing beliefs than the other way around. Like a sort of cognitive hermit crab that finds husks of information to assemble around itself as it grows.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Like a sort of cognitive hermit crab that finds husks of information to assemble around itself as it grows. To be fair, this sounds a lot cozier than standing on some giant's shoulder 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:This is part of the "Capitalism cannot fail, only be failed" bullshit right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
You see, under Mao he murdered millions of people in pursuit of Communism, so those deaths can be attributed directly to Communism. Under Democracy, we are all responsible so no one is responsible. Therefore, no deaths are directly attributable to Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70w1XFEIFnI#t=4060s I listened to this debate on the way home from work the other day. It's the first time I've heard a person argue with an objectivist out loud. I wouldn't be surprised if this objectivist is JRod's econ teacher back in college. That guy was really out there, and his Elmer Fudd voice sure didn't help. He was really stuck on this idea that workers are paid the least because they are the least productive and kept getting into circular arguements about how wealth is created and who deserves to be compensated. Also according to him, unions are bad and hurt wages and all the things unions claimed to have provided were things that companies totally decided to do on their own, unions just copied them and got greedy. But the best part is that Vaush kept hammering him about how his ideology is indistinguishable from feudalism and none of the guys arguements really proved otherwise. Best he could come up with was the fact that under feudalism the population's standard of living barely improved in a millennium while under capitalism it massively improved according to him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:My econ 101 class started with "what is an economic model and what is it for." The professor gave basic concepts of several different models, their entry points, and their theories of value. Then he gave examples of how they could be used to make predictions and highlighted how the predictions are different. There are a few subjects that I never studied at any level of education that I regret. Chemistry is one example, I took physics but goofed off and regret it, and I wish that I had studied more about music history and theory. However, I always avoided economics quite deliberately because of the politics of it and the preponderance of true believers and sociopaths. Bias exists in every field of academia, but no moreso than econ and business. My commie jew family warned me about this, and they were right. I'm a professor myself now, in the humanities, and I frequently will make overly broad generalisations. However, I always qualify them by saying very clearly that they are overly broad and that I would introduce exceptions later. I even recall in the physics class that I regret taking the piss out of that the speed of light issue was immediately clarified to be 'in a vacuum'. I just have a special distrust of economics and business as subjects because they are tools of capital. Look at how many university professors in those fields are libertarians and/or are basically owned by big business to preach their gospel. Panfilo posted:This is part of the "Capitalism cannot fail, only be failed" bullshit right? Halloween Jack posted:I mean it's just plain old chauvinism, like how atrocities are "spreading democracy" when the US commits them. Anything bad that happens under anything vaguely socialistic/communist is the fault of the system, but anything bad under capitalism is an anomaly caused by bad actors or interference by socialists. It's all about marketing, and oligarchs have the marketing power. In a way, one can hardly blame people for having no critical thought. People have been bombarded for years with constant messages about how we need to 'create jobs' or 'encourage growth' while making sure to cut taxes and regulations, and with that kind of propaganda all but a very few are going to realise that they are being duped. I'm not talking about the raving classist sociopaths like FuckWit, just regular people. All anyone has to do in the U.S. especially is to just keep screaming freedom over and over. As long as people are have the illusion of negative freedom the ruling class can destroy their society, prospects, planet, and hope and they will let themselves be boiled alive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You see, under Mao he murdered millions of people in pursuit of Communism, so those deaths can be attributed directly to Communism. Actually what deaths have occurred under Capitalism are also directly attributable to Communism, due to...  statism poor time preference taxation  bad culture fitage of consent laws sex trafficking laws collectivism watermelon shortage phrenological deficiencies currency debasement Grace Baiting fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:This is part of the "Capitalism cannot fail, only be failed" bullshit right? I see it as ideological fundamental attribution bias.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Did the libertarian abandon this thread for good after people started challenging them to take the LSAT?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Jrod https://youtu.be/eKFN-aqPJH8 Seriously though it’d be fun when he returns if everyone just completely talk around him and act like he’s not there, I think it’d kill him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Did the libertarian abandon this thread for good after people started challenging them to take the LSAT? I think it was when Jrod went "everyone should have to agree with people who score better than them on standardised tests" and then realised they had basically the lowest standardised tests scores in the thread. Jrod got dunked on for choosing a measure that was bullshit, and then chaos dunked on for then failing to meet the bullshit bar that they themselves had set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Did he ever address that? I do remember he was painful average but bragged it was exceptional Edit: of course he didn't. Why did I ask
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
My offer to take the lsat and measure my dick against his still stands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
hooman posted:I think it was when Jrod went "everyone should have to agree with people who score better than them on standardised tests" and then realised they had basically the lowest standardised tests scores in the thread. Jrod got dunked on for choosing a measure that was bullshit, and then chaos dunked on for then failing to meet the bullshit bar that they themselves had set. It's the glyphosate interview problem, where you have some snappy little soundbite that sounds good but unfortunately contains within it an actual testable fact that you then have to either back up or run away from. He set out an explicit challenge that he never expected to be called on, because, like a good little fascist drone, he had absorbed the idea of hierarchical tests being good, but had no idea that such a test might ever be applied to him and find him wanting. Smart fascists keep their cards close to their chest and never actually lay out concrete hierarchy algorithms because they always, always, always will find themselves lower on that hierarchy than the people they're talking to. He also refused to learn about why IQ is a bad measurement when I posted a video explaining my point, and instead demanded that I summarise the video for him, which, incidentally, I'll repost here because it's a jolly good time watching The Bell Curve get completely loving obliterated by the research equivalent of an orbital kinetic strike (this video is pared to the loving bone and still comes in at two and a half hours because it's making a lot of complex, interconnected points, the idea that I should summarise it further is the sort of laziness that gave jrod his rep) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo Somfin fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Jun 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It's the glyphosate interview problem, where you have some snappy little soundbite that sounds good but unfortunately contains within it an actual testable fact that you then have to either back up or run away from. He set out an explicit challenge that he never expected to be called on, because, like a good little fascist drone, he had absorbed the idea of hierarchical tests being good, but had no idea that such a test might ever be applied to him and find him wanting. I watched this video a couple months back on the recommendation of this thread and can confirm it is an excellent watch. Total  at how it's considered some sort of authoritative text given it's hideous loving foundations
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It's the glyphosate interview problem, where you have some snappy little soundbite that sounds good but unfortunately contains within it an actual testable fact that you then have to either back up or run away from. He set out an explicit challenge that he never expected to be called on, because, like a good little fascist drone, he had absorbed the idea of hierarchical tests being good, but had no idea that such a test might ever be applied to him and find him wanting. I particularly liked the part where he used the SAT as a stand in for his IQ, when the original name (scholastic aptitude test) explicitly points out that it tests your scholastic aptitude, not general intelligence.  This is not a test of general intelligence, if there even were such a thing that could be measured. Yes, if your general intelligence is higher you might score better than someone else with a similar education, all things being equal, but if you don't know how to do the math involved in the equation, you will fail. If you went to a bad school that couldn't adequately teach you, you will fail. If you have a better tutor, you will get a better score, etc. It is the stupidest poo poo on top of the stupidest poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:I particularly liked the part where he used the SAT as a stand in for his IQ, when the original name (scholastic aptitude test) explicitly points out that it tests your scholastic aptitude, not general intelligence. This one is fantastic because the question is literally "have you been taught to read mathematical notation." Not "can you learn math" or "can you put numbers together" or "can you understand higher-level mathematical ideas like algebra" but instead, explicitly, "has someone walked you through mathematical notation already to the point where you are fluent in it," like, nobody starts out knowing this poo poo, people have to be taught the core concepts of algebra (like that P isn't actually a number but is more the idea of a number and the big horizontal line means "divide" and the big curvy lines are parentheses and that means "this bit resolves first" and if you put something next to the big horizontal line that means "multiply by" even though normally putting a number next to a horizontal line means "minus" and on and on and on) by someone who already knows it. It's a language memorisation question dressed in the clothes of a math question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Smart fascists keep their cards close to their chest and never actually lay out concrete hierarchy algorithms because they always, always, always will find themselves lower on that hierarchy than the people they're talking to. AKA, where is your chin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
Caros posted:I particularly liked the part where he used the SAT as a stand in for his IQ, when the original name (scholastic aptitude test) explicitly points out that it tests your scholastic aptitude, not general intelligence. it's B right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 09:40
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:it's B right? Yes, division is multiplication by the inverse
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 09:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jeremykauffman/status/1402606485964722177 I feel like this account is somewhat satirical but I have no interest in actually delving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
Golbez posted:https://twitter.com/jeremykauffman/status/1402606485964722177 Libertarian relationships are illegal throughout the developed world, tbf
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Libertarian relationships are illegal throughout the developed world, tbf You know, it took me a second. Bravo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Libertarian relationships are illegal throughout the developed world, tbf Mods!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LizardRumsfeld/status/1412838881565855747
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
If I make the decision to wawk into the stweet, should the dwivah have to make a wittle fucky wucky?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:If I make the decision to wawk into the stweet, should the dwivah have to make a wittle fucky wucky? And who are we to deny babies the right to crawl into the street on their own?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
If the driver runs someone over, do they own their kill? Can they sell the carcass's organs, say? Or just their delicious meat? If someone wants to buy human flesh to eat, that's their decision, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
The most efficient way to organize production is to have everybody constantly doing their own building inspections everywhere they go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
Gotta bootstrap yourself out of a collapsing World Trade Center
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
God what a spectacular loving take.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 12:10
|
|
|
I think I heard the Sefs or Vaush debate this libertarian Elmer Fudd. What exactly is his point? That even hundreds dying in building collapses is fine as long as they were willing to take the risk? That it's the lesser of two evils to have a libertarian building crush people VS one regulated by government inspectors?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
They start from the assumption that deregulation is right and then desperately try to hammer reality into a shape that fits that assumption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 13:32
|
|
|
They are social darwinists who believe that buildings collapsing on people and drivers gunning it to mow down pedestrians who didn't notice them is how we clear inferior human specimens from the genepool, and that this will never backfire against them because they're superior hypermen who would sense an unsafe building or contaminated ice cream and strike it down with gunkata before it could harm them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Holygamoley is that a super loving dumb take. The people who suffered were the innocent occupants who probably thought that the building was fine. I guess in his world people would perform their due diligence by sap-glove interrogating their landlords? Individually, of course, or else that would count as a group effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 11:20
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:Holygamoley is that a super loving dumb take. The people who suffered were the innocent occupants who probably thought that the building was fine. I guess in his world people would perform their due diligence by sap-glove interrogating their landlords? Individually, of course, or else that would count as a group effort. In this case at least a portion of the people who suffered were people who had kept voting not do anything about the issues that had been brought up to the point that like 5 out of 7 condo board members had resigned over not being able to get people to support paying for maintenance, which is not to say that they deserved anything that happens for that, but even if you thought they did deserve it, really sticking to that take is saying that anyone who did vote for maintenance would deserve to die for the crime of being outvoted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
Well they chose to stay therefore they chose to die in a horrible collapse. Along with their kids who chose to keep living there instead of requesting copies of the inspection reports and then moving out and getting a job to pay for their own place. Personal responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
I actually find the collapsed building somewhat less offensive than his Vioxx/opiod take, if only because with the former there is some vague, twisted way you could blame a handful of the people who died who might have been owners in the building who fought against paying extra maintenance. It is bullshit, but you could at leastkind of be like 'well this greedy gently caress knew the building needed work and didn't pay' sort of nonsense. The Vioxx thing is so frustrating because it is defeated by the libertarian's natural enemy. Someone who knows something about anything. He pitches it as 'the mean FDA forced pharma companies to stop selling this incredible pain medication because of a measly 10% increase in heart attacks and strokes'. People should be able to choose for themselves if they want to take on that risk. Now, ignore the fact that people suffering severe pain are not rational actors. That part of the reason people become addicted to painkillers with nasty side effects is that they can't make the risk/reward benefit when they are in, you know, agony. Ignore all of that. Literally none of what he is saying about the drug is true. It didn't increase the risk by 10% compared to other medication. It increased it by between 200-500% compared to other or placebo, depending on the group studied. Given the large market penetration of the drug at the time, this 200-500% increase led to something in the range of about ~100,000 severe cardiac incidents over the course of five years. The number of people who used the drug was estimated to be about 20,000,000, meaning that ~0.5% of all people who used the drug for pain relief suffered a severe cardiac incident. 1/200 is really, really bad odds of serious side effect for a loving pain med. Which is of course why the manufacturer voluntarily pulled it. Not the FDA, the FDA didn't roll in and say "You can't keep buying this pain medication with dangerous side effects." Nope. They just at one point demanded that the manufacturers of this type of medication conduct additional research to make sure it was safe. And when that research finished, and they weren't able to cover up the results to their satisfaction, the drug manufacturers pulled the medication, because continuing to sell pills that have a 1/200 chance of making your heart explode is a fairly massive legal liability. Especially when you are selling them by the million. It is just so goddamn frustrating because he's sitting there arguing that people should be able to make the informed choice about their medication, when his example is a drug where the manufacturer knew there was a problem, concealed that problem for years and then immediately pulled the drug when they realized they would get sued into oblivion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
if i were unknowingly in a dangerous or deadly situation, i would simply deduce an optimal solution of perfect safety (and charge others an appropriate fee for saving their lives too), regardless of my material circumstances i think i am literally batman ✕ sherlock holmes, ama
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Caros, your 'problem' is that you are using the logic of a decent person. If this thread has taught me anything, it's that libertarianism is built on the idea that everyone (read: I) should be able to do whatever they (read: 'I' again) want and if anyone stops
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2021 17:44
|
|