The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread! [Part 2]

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread! [Part 2]

«‹›3 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I wonder how many years we are from a livestreamed serial killer with a patreon account.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 06:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Visidan posted:

It seems the only reports that ever get acted upon are copyright claims, wonder why that is.

Different legal requirements and regime.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 21:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread: a cartoon banana in a fedora talking about jews

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 19:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Could someone tell me about Ann Lieven?

# ¿ May 9, 2017 18:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

This got passed over earlier, but I'd appreciate others' takes on Ann Lieven. In particular, what's with the random Cyrillic?

# ¿ May 13, 2017 22:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Rush was and is genuinely massively influential.

# ¿ May 17, 2017 06:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Oh good, eripsa's seeking attention by jacking threads again.

# ¿ May 17, 2017 18:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

boner confessor posted:

oh yeah haha. like it's better to describe yourself as a political antique. i wonder if that's just the part of carl which desires intellectual authority without going through all the work of education and building a pundit's career so you just dress yourself up in half understood fancy language like you're some kind of stolen valor weirdo for academia

Well, dressing up as a political antique is a large part of what these people do.

# ¿ May 20, 2017 02:43

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

business hammocks posted:

How did Charles Murray crawl back to relevance after his 90s heyday? He was an old gently caress peddling racist nonsense way back then. He should have died in disgrace years ago.

Protestors at one of his college talks gave the right wing press an opening to use him as a standard of "academic free speech".

# ¿ May 22, 2017 19:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Flip Yr Wig posted:

The last time we got to talk about it, it wasn't really the time or place, though she said that her and my dad argue about it a lot, and he's pretty capable of taking those arguments down. Her main response to me is that I can't speak to the arguments unless I read the Bell Curve myself and listen to Sam Harris' podcast. And Christ alive, life is too short.

I've read it. There's very little to even attempt to defend.

# ¿ May 22, 2017 21:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

bessantj posted:

One thing I've noticed about quite a few of these 'intellectuals' they tend to take 30 minutes where 5-10 would have been more than enough. Is there a reason for this other than they're gibbering wrecks?

I can't track it down atm, but somewhere in the thread there's a discussion of the how and why of youtube video mechanisms and how they incentivise bad practices. I think it's more than length==more ads, I think a length minimum of right around 15 minutes also effects the likelihood of suggested video or feed display.

# ¿ May 27, 2017 00:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Man, I wish. Far Cry 5's plot looks generic Far Cry terrible as all hell. Daubing the seven deadly sins on random objects, baptism as murder...the writers thought the story they needed to imitate was Bioshock Infinite. The only basis for thinking they'd do something with white supremacists is that the logo of the baddies looks sort of like the one stormfronters use.

# ¿ May 29, 2017 17:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Does anyone actually have the legal complaint in question?

# ¿ May 31, 2017 19:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

WrenP-Complete posted:

Which one?

puglad. I think we've wandered into another PDP-style derail where a group of posters are arguing about something without reading about it.

# ¿ May 31, 2017 19:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The only media covering this case initially were those trying to beat an "anti-PC" drum. It's worth considering why that is.

# ¿ May 31, 2017 20:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

WrenP-Complete posted:

I haven't the slightest idea what a 9GAG is.

Image meme hosting site.

# ¿ May 31, 2017 22:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:

What killed social justice

the eugenic car

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 06:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dmitri-9 posted:

He badmouths socialists and liberals in this video. What are his left wing positions?

Self-sabotage.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 15:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

"Classical Liberalism" has a fairly specifically defined set of ideas to it, going back a hundred years or so. It's economically focused libertarianism, similar enough to what we generally think of as libertarianism in the US that the differences don't particularly matter. It has nothing to do with "liberal" as it's used in the US today, and nothing to do with the Democratic party. It's largely the same set of philosophers and economists libertarians usually go to when they want to defend their ideas: Locke, Hayek, etc.

There were meaningful academic differences once upon a time, but it still boils down to the same set of political beliefs, except this time they're wearing a powdered wig.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jun 11, 2017

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 19:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

NikkolasKing posted:

Is Classical Liberalism like that?

Libertarianism generally is, or assumes, a strong deontological ethics system. This means strong, usually nebulously defined rights. Deontologically focused ethics systems are, generally, pretty sucky as a political ideology because they don't address practical or causal elements, or the entailments of the rights systems, or rights conflicts...etc. Functioning societies have a mix of deontological systems (assertions of strong rules such as human or citizen rights) and consequentialist systems (exceptions to those strong rules, checks and balances, causal reasoning and flexible amendment systems).

The 5,000 foot view of Classical Liberalism is that it's Libertarianism, applied specifically (and, roughly speaking, exclusively) to economic rights. Free market all the way, often with a smattering of paleocon government minimalism.

Historically, it was a reaction against what we'd now call conservatism, and some forms of what we'd think of as modern-day liberalism. That's...mostly fallen away. It's worth emphasizing that there's a genuine set of at least decently reasoned historical texts and ideas somewhere in the roots of this, but even back then, people didn't use the term consistently, and although some of these ideas were impressive or innovative at the time, they obviously have not stood up to testing. When people first came up with, say, individual egoist conceptions of society, it was at least new and different from "God/the King says so". Now...not so much.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 21:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

rkajdi posted:

The man you're talking about in this case (Sargon) has a 10th grade education. Do you think he even has a chance to get any of the nuance down, or do you think he's just a standard disingenuous NEET who's bitter that people with some actual human value are getting ahead of him in society?

Oh, almost certainly not. I'm guessing he's been to mises.org a couple times or something. I'm providing the historical context and something approaching actual info about the concept of it just for contrast and background purposes.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2017 21:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

producer is basicaly just rubberstamp and money. I have yet to see it and i have heard its really good. Snyder is poo poo but i sorta like watchmen at least for the cinamatography/set design. parts of it do genuinly feel ripped from the comic and i like the actors for the most part except for ozymandias who they hosed up completely for the most part. rorshach is well done in it for being a broken insane hard right hobo.

Snyder loving up the framing of Ozymandias isn't coincidental- one of his dream projects is Atlas Shrugged.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2017 02:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ungulateman posted:

Snyder's 'dream project' is the fountainhead, not atlas shrugged

remember the ending of bvs where there's a quote from christopher wren (who was a philanthropist, devout christian, and most relevantly an architect) on superman's tombstone, in stark contrast to the big statue of Superman-as-Atlas that used to be there? and how the villain is a randian billionaire manchild with a god complex?

the dude's kinda crazy and loves jesus and jesus metaphors but that should make it even more obvious that he isn't an objectivist

I apologize. Him preferring the Fountainhead, though, doesn't make him not an objectivist. It just means I get to be even more concerned about how he deals with gender and power dynamics. And it certainly reinforces the Ozymandias framing issue.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2017 07:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

My character's name is Darkendo Void, he has a dark and troubled past on his way to surpassing WhaleBot to claim his rightful place as the True Pedant

# ¿ Jun 26, 2017 15:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

1. IFM is a troll account.
2. The Chinese Room is/are fine. Machine for Pigs' problems are more easily traced to their partner game devs having an asset flow problem-something that keeps happening to them. Dear Esther and Korsakovia were and are very innovative.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 03:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I haven't been able to watch it yet, but the linked "ethical skeptic " site in the description makes me nervous.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2017 13:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Praseodymi posted:

I haven't read all of the page, but it's just used for it's definition of the null hypothesis and some common errors.

Why Wikipedia wouldn't have done I don't know.

Yeah, the weird part is that reading a bit more of the page, it looks a lot like it's written by someone well off their rocker. The description of fallacies there is mostly technically correct, it's true (though the author makes up names for a bunch of things with Unneccessary Symbolic Capitalized References). The other parts are written in a way that seems like the author is way off the deep end of the pond. And I say that as someone who generally subscribes to a lot of the philosophy of science positions that I encountered during my skim.

Sidenote: the naming part is a thing I've noticed with the discourse around scientific/meta-scientific/stat logic material. There's a tremendous amount of people rediscovering well-documented concepts and creating private vocabularies for them, both within and outside of the academy. Lots of reinventing the wheel going on as folks rediscover specific logical errors and, in particular, corollaries to the problem of induction.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2017 15:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fallout 3 had both severe tech and writing problems, though the environment, setting and greater number of interiors was very cool. NV had better writing crippled by cut content and implementation issues, plus the universal dumb fallou inevitable final conflict. And the setting wasn't quite as cool.

His dark souls 2 video is a colossal stretch, though. There's a lot of vaguely Stockholm syndrome-esque rationalization of broken or janky mechanics there.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2017 06:04

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I heard hbomberguy's favorite Arkham game is Blackgate.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2017 05:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Really nice summarizing op-ed in the but on abuse of the assertion of the first amendment, today. I'll post it when I'm not phoneposting.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2017 13:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

If I had a billion dollars, I'd flip Ohio. For a hundred years.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jul 8, 2017

# ¿ Jul 8, 2017 23:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Several public health people I've worked with have refused to collaborate with the Gates foundation because they have a reputation for loving up both interventions and research.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2017 01:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Somfin posted:

If I was a game dev and had a windfall of $2 billion, I'd fund about five hundred independent game studios to the tune of $2m each. That'd leave me a spare billion to throw around and five hundred games being made that otherwise might not be.

Basically what Blow did with his ~tens of millions.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2017 04:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's been awhile since I read up on it, but as I recall the prejudice + power formulation was constructed originally for what I might call academic advocacy purposes, to fold harm arguments into the definition and leverage it for broader political use. This...turned out poorly, both because it creates problems for intersectional interpretation, because it's easy to abuse the expression, and because, ultimately, it's a pretty reductive and dumb definition that confuses effect with content.

It's popular in some advocate corners because it's a catchy phrase that provides the impression of insight (or a rhetorical knife-twist), and popular as a means of attacking anti-racist arguments in other corners because it's so obviously reductive and exclusive.

...On further thought, there's probably a parallel to the cultural appropriation arguments here somewhere.

Zikan posted:

in other alt-right news Stefan Molyneux continues to own self

https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux/status/886710167794061312

I see where that's going and I'm disgusted that I do.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2017 18:30

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

WrenP-Complete posted:

Who writes rationalwiki? Divabot and friends?

Re: prejudice plus power, I'm linking to this with extreme caution: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

Interesting, I knew the wiki article was out there, but hadn't read it. The Hoyt, Jr., commentary, and the sources it cites, were the main sources I'd used when previously looking at the subject.

WrenP-Complete posted:

This is offensive to human dignity. (The Molyneux quote, not Vox.)

His current pinned tweet is
https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/886790856916815873

:headdesk:

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jul 17, 2017

# ¿ Jul 17, 2017 19:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

IQ as a concept appears to have some validity once you get past the cultural issues, but it's a loving standardized scale. The test doesn't even measure consistently year to year. There are so many layers of wrong in interpreting it in this way, I don't know where to begin.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2017 22:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

...Wait, "manosphere"?

googles

:stare:

# ¿ Jul 28, 2017 00:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

We should mix-n-match the pantheon of misunderstood philosophical/theoretical concepts from the Internet Opinionverse.

Logical Marxism. Cultural Positivism.

New Signalling. Virtue Atheism.

Third Warrior Feminism.

Justicism is Marx Plus Positivism.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2017 15:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

rkajdi posted:

Logical positivism is the idea that the base condition is things not existing. So acting like it's logical to say "Well, it's logically possible to for a god to exist" without proof and then using more logic to tell you about it is about as smart as "Well, it's logically possible there's just this stuff called ether" without proof and going from there. It's sort of the basis for science, since you can't just start claiming that things exist without proof. The whole thing could be that I follow materialism, so I don't see any of these things outside physical reality as being real in the first place.

What? No, that's...that's the...no. Where did you get..what?

# ¿ Jul 29, 2017 15:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Please return to the dems are a waste cells

# ¿ Aug 3, 2017 14:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Youtube Intellectual Mock Thread! [Part 2]

«‹›3 »