Angry_Ed posted:

How the gently caress are those things related.

Angry_Ed posted:

I'm amazed it took a political scientist to tell us something the New Deal already demonstrated.

Panfilo posted:

She, like many similar weirdo bigots on Twitter, believe that kids cannot consent to 'transing'* or drag shows because their little brains are not developed enough to understand what it happening and it will inevitably harm them. Since they think this is the same kind of abuse that happens when adults show kids hardcore pornography or expose themselves to children. Thus, anyone who argues against her point is a groomer.

A few people pointed out the hypocrisy in demanding the nanny state go after people that run drag queen Story hour or help provide gender affirming care to minors. Especially when libertarians like her were very hostile to the idea of government intervention with regards to covid policies. Her clapback to this:
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1653503497281720339?t=5C1G-i3NNDlUn6d7NfhxLg&s=19
So to her what goes on between a doctor and a minor patient is not a private matter, when they are talking about things she finds yucky. It's just like lobotomies, you see? Any day now they'll look back on transing* kids the same way they look at lobotomies today.

*You might think they intend to use "transitioning" here, but I've learned through context that this term is more ideological in nature. It isn't about a social/physical transition so much as it's manipulation into what they consider a woke cult that is brainwashing children.

Panfilo posted:

The problem with that question is that these people think being cis is normal and everything else is mental illnesses. So to them of course they couldn't be anything other than cis, that's what everyone is supposed to be. They think trans people are being delusional.

Similarly they compare trans kids to vegan cats in that they think both are unnatural and only exist due to external influence.

Panfilo posted:

The problem with that question is that these people think being cis is normal and everything else is mental illnesses. So to them of course they couldn't be anything other than cis, that's what everyone is supposed to be. They think trans people are being delusional.

Similarly they compare trans kids to vegan cats in that they think both are unnatural and only exist due to external influence.

PT6A posted:

How can it be both mental illness, and a thing that only exists due to external influences, in their mind?

Or do they also think you can be talked into having mental illness???

PT6A posted:

How can it be both mental illness, and a thing that only exists due to external influences, in their mind?

Or do they also think you can be talked into having mental illness???

PT6A posted:

How can it be both mental illness, and a thing that only exists due to external influences, in their mind?

Or do they also think you can be talked into having mental illness???

theshim posted:

Obviously the evil trans agenda is taking advantage of mentally ill people and infecting them with this idea that they think will solve their problems

excuse me while I go try to scrub the filth off my hands from typing that

Weatherman posted:

I think it was SAT scores that he got destroyed on, not IQ. For one thing, the thread was pretty united on IQ scores being racialised bullshit.

polymathy posted:

As far as I recall, I've never had a formal IQ test.

Like many others though I have taken the SAT test. I scored 1300. Above average, perhaps gifted, but certainly not genius level.

This would probably translate to an IQ somewhere between 120 and 130.

Vahakyla posted:

Coulter did Reddit AMAs where she said she didn’t give a poo poo besides having enough money to be comfortable and, what I remember well, not wanting to wake up earlyfor work.

hooman posted:

You're right, I was remembering this absolute A+ post.

Cue a bunch of the thread posting their SATs or equivalent and doing the IQ conversion. Also calling his 1300 SAT gifted....

quote:

For as long as there has been an Objectivist movement, its ranks have periodically been thinned by schisms and excommunications, power struggles and purges. I have recently had the opportunity to observe one of these episodes from the inside.
About a year ago, a short essay of mine called “A Question of Sanction” circulated among Objectivists and others. It was a response to an article by Peter Schwartz in The Intellectual Activist, demanding that those who speak to libertarians be ostracized from the movement; without mentioning my name, Schwartz made it clear that I was one of his targets. In response, I argued that those who promote ideas we think are false do not automatically deserve moral censure. There’s a difference between error and evil. I also observed that Objectivism is not a closed system of belief and that we might actually learn something by talking to people we disagree with. On both counts, I said, we should practice tolerance as a virtue.
Leonard Peikoff then published an article, “Fact and Value,” in which he took issue with most of the points I had made. He charged that I repudiated fundamental principles of Objectivism, including the objectivity of values and the necessity of moral judgment. In most cases, he claimed, false ideas are evil, and so are the people who hold them. He added that Objectivism is a closed system, and that the movement should be closed along with it. In effect, he invited those who agree with me to leave town.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Even if we grant the assumption that SAT and IQ tests are both measuring the same thing (they're not and they don't even claim to) and that "intelligence" is a real underlying numerical trait everyone has that can be measured in the first place (it isn't), a quick lookup shows that a 1300 on the SAT is an 86th percentile score*. On an IQ test, by the way the tests are calibrated, an 86th percentile score is 115, which is below the range he claimed he'd probably be in. This dumbass genuinely thought scoring one standard deviation above the mean on one test meant he would score two standard deviations above the mean on another test, and thought this stupid claim would make him look smart.

*(Some sources point out that while a 1300 is 86th percentile among people who take the SAT, "people who take the SAT" is a group with some self-selection not representative of the general population, and claim that a 1300 on the SAT is actually 91st percentile among the general population with that sampling bias removed. The corresponding IQ by percentiles would still be 120, which is in the range he offered but down at the very bottom, and him suggesting his SAT score might prove he has an IQ of 130 is just delusional self-aggrandizement. And that's assuming you buy into the underlying assumption that these tests are measuring "true intelligence", which is baloney.)

VitalSigns posted:

The actual reason that Branden broke with her is because she excommunicated him for banging a hot model instead of continuing his extramarital affair with Ayn (and she swore everyone involved to secrecy and just told the wider cult that he was evil and don't ask any questions.)

hooman posted:

You're right, I was remembering this absolute A+ post.

Cue a bunch of the thread posting their SATs or equivalent and doing the IQ conversion. Also calling his 1300 SAT gifted....

Proust Malone posted:

https://twitter.com/davidoatkins/status/1651281534702460928?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw

I ran across this one on twitter which was surprising to me that it appears the average republican voternis way more left on economic issues than I assumed. It also makes clear why they push the culture war so hard. Also that the whole “socially liberal, economically conservative” people just don’t exist.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

It seems that the American voters are either "socially liberal, economically liberal" or "socially conservative, leans economically conservative"? Hell, there aren't even that conservative especially compared to the actual GOP. It is super interesting to me that there aren't any "socially liberal, economically conservative” people despite what you hear in the media.

Am I reading this right?

Proust Malone posted:

https://twitter.com/davidoatkins/status/1651281534702460928?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw

I ran across this one on twitter which was surprising to me that it appears the average republican voternis way more left on economic issues than I assumed. It also makes clear why they push the culture war so hard. Also that the whole “socially liberal, economically conservative” people just don’t exist.

Clarste posted:

It also shows that the fabled swing voter demographic who are equally likely to vote Blue or Red are mostly economically liberal and socially conservative.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Clarste posted:

It also shows that the fabled swing voter demographic who are equally likely to vote Blue or Red are mostly economically liberal and socially conservative.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Another problem is that they usually determine that ranking by self-identification and a huge swatch of people like to say they are moderate or independent, despite voting exactly like how a strong partisan or ideological voter would vote.

PT6A posted:

How can it be both mental illness, and a thing that only exists due to external influences, in their mind?

Or do they also think you can be talked into having mental illness???

HootTheOwl posted:

I don't understand how this is a gotcha? Of course mental illness can exist because of external influences. What else is trauma? Or PTSD?

Panfilo posted:

Libertarians simultaneously believe transgenderism is a communist plot but also mock communists for being far more hostile to trans and gay people. I mean which is it?

quote:

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Enver Zogha posted:

See also: the denunciation of Marxism as atheistic alongside the denunciation of Marxism as messianic or Christian or Gnostic or Satanic, denouncing Marxism for being anti-Semitic but also a Jewish conspiracy, denouncing Marxism as a means by which resentful losers legitimize their envy but also being a tool of wealthy globalists to better oppress the hardworking white man, etc.

Panfilo posted:

Libertarians simultaneously believe transgenderism is a communist plot but also mock communists for being far more hostile to trans and gay people. I mean which is it?

OwlFancier posted:

Equally lol and lmao at the idea that it's marx who despiritualized life, my brother in christ that's capitalism that did that and marx would tell you the same thing.