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.

Hitler did decently composed urban landscapes, primarily.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2017 21:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 19:25

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.

Ytlaya posted:

You're not using a consistent definition of "peaceful" here. Either you include intimidation in your definition of "not peaceful" - which case stuff like the modern KKK definitely apply, since any such group protesting in public areas is inherently intimidation - or you don't, in which case the burning cross would be considered "peaceful."

Public protest by a group such as the KKK, even including a cross burning, is not classified as intimidation unto itself. Hate speech is constitutionally protected.This isn't new, nor is it controversial. It's really, really not controversial.

Yes, those cases refer to statutes. No, hate speech doesn't give you legal or moral license to commit crimes against the speaker.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Aug 6, 2017

# ¿ Aug 6, 2017 01:03

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.

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Hate speech creates an environment of intimidation and well... hatred, and is often a thinly-veiled call for violence against minorities. It has real impact on the lives of people and on the state of the culture. Just because we've chosen to ignore these consequences and basically made terrible legal decisions doesn't mean that hate speech should continue to be constitutionally protected. I feel like most people keep missing the fact that the US Constitution is in many ways no longer relevant to our understanding of society or law and is a terrible document off of which to base entire legal precedents. Also, I don't believe that moral license can somehow be revoked here...

Every member of SCOTUS disagrees with you. The alternative is worse.

# ¿ Aug 6, 2017 03:24

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.

Lotta folks happy to substitute their unexamined intuitions about the social ramifications of state-sanctioned internal political violence for any actual source of legal or moral authority in this thread. We're headed down the same track as the last one.

Somfin posted:

Surely, then, there will come a time when the punching will cease, due to 100% of the nazis being punched.

Why do you assume that punching a nazi causes them to stop existing?

# ¿ Aug 6, 2017 14:28

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 personally would like there to be a really well-informed, nuanced macroeconomics channel hosted and voiced by someone who sounds like they're a member of the Wurzels.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2017 21:07

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.

Check Sneakster's regdate.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2017 03:45

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.

boner confessor posted:

my kink is being a lazy unhygenic piece of human filth, merging with my desk chair, stained orange and slowly expanding with abdominal fat

Dongicus posted:

you sound like a badass

# ¿ Aug 11, 2017 20:53

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.

JFairfax posted:

gonna be fun when the police start joining in with the white supremacists against the rest of the population

That's...pretty much the opposite of what's happened. Charlottesville is generally blue, its police department has a comparatively good record, and they've already arrested the driver.

# ¿ Aug 12, 2017 22:13

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.

Kjoery posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2l3UiIQY8g
so youtube skeptics are, for the most part, basically alt-right propagandists at this point, yeah?

Many of them, yes. There's a more sustainable revenue stream in the alt-right, and there are certain ideological similarities.

# ¿ Aug 14, 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.

El Pollo Blanco posted:

When has libertarianism ever been a coherent ideology?

Never. Strong deontological systems are massively incoherent even by comparison to other ideologies. They persist because...

Vulpinetaco posted:

When it was actually leftist and not Randian bullshit.

...their failings and internal inconsistencies can be easily reinterpreted to fit the immediate, shallow preferences of members of pretty much any political group. Thus, there is always an older, purer form of strong liberalism that happened to correspond to my political preferences.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2017 17:36

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.

Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:

I literally wish this was me

except I'd spend the money to swing Wisconsin.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2017 14:28

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.

Libertarian right claims also work really well as self-terminating thought processes. The NAP (or property rights, or any given right I intuitively claim) is good, so if I believe something violates the NAP, there's no reason to think any more about alternative factors, outcomes, etc.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2017 16:13

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.

WampaLord posted:

Likewise, if something doesn't violate NAP, then it's totally fine even if it has terrible side effects (thinking of stuff like industrial pollution or other tragedy of the commons type situations)

Good point, yes. In general, these libertarian systems function as strong deontological ethics heuristics (I know, I've harped on them a lot here). So, basically, the adherent is discouraged from causal reasoning. "what effect does this have" is not something that occurs to the thinker unless it's an effect that they're already focused on. I think that's part of what makes it so fascinating and produces such bizzare arguments and ideas. It cultivates a remarkably myopic mind.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2017 16:29

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.

She had elocution lessons.

My Fair Nazi.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2017 19:26

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.

ChristopherRobin posted:

Wasn't sure if I should post something he tweeted earlier here, but since this is here I guess I will.

https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/910547650407055360

It's absolutely amazing logic.

"D&D terms"?

"troll"?

"race"?

..."fishmech"?

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 19:26

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.

..."grand wizard"'s a d&d term? I can't find it anywhere.

Cripes, if the guy wanted to try to defend it from that angle, cite Isle of the Ape!

# ¿ Sep 20, 2017 21:03

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'd never heard of Hamilton before, she's incredible, even if she is responsible for the term "software engineer".

# ¿ Sep 26, 2017 15:24

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.

Goon Danton posted:

Having had these kinds of talks in real life, going Socratic is a solid option. Boy howdy do they not like being asked questions about why they think the way they do.

Agreed, it's especially effective on the irony/satire/"memeing" line.

# ¿ Oct 2, 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.

Robert Mercer is the original self-made STEM monster-the platonic ideal of the form.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2017 14:23

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.

Is this an appropriate venue to discuss Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew? It was being quoted around the Trump thread a lot in DnD so I went out and got a copy. This...might be the most uneven text I've ever read. Some parts are highly diagnostic of the precise internal mental world of people in the alt-right, but a lot of it is profoundly, horrifyingly ignorant. The philosopher who wrote the intro does a good job of emphasizing "sartre did no research before writing this text".

I tried to talk about it in the general philosophy thread and apparently that was enough to kill it.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 18:54

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.

Goon Danton posted:

Gonna be honest here, Sam Hyde is a new name to me. What's his deal?

He's an alt-right racist "video prankster" who successfully got into Adult Swim's roster thanks to their drive for transgressive stoner humor. Hides heavily behind the usual "post-irony", "alt-comedy" and "performance artist" titles. Thankfully the company woke up, realized what was going on and appear to be cleaning house.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 19:03

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.

Goon Danton posted:

From what I've seen, this is basically satre.txt. Got a link to the essay and intro by any chance? Or is this one of them "books" I've heard so much about

alas, tis a book. I'll see if the text is online.

http://abahlali.org/files/Jean-Paul_Sartre_Anti-Semite_and_Jew_An_Exploration_of_the_Etiology_of_Hate__1995.pdf

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 19:16

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.

Goon Danton posted:

I'm with you almost all the way. Except that I also dislike the idea of "virtue." Consequentialism forever woooo

woooooooo

# ¿ Oct 7, 2017 22:13

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.

Obviously, Murray et al's racial inheritance poo poo is bogus, but my understanding is some of the "IQ tests" have validity and utility, particularly if you're looking at performance on specific subtasks. Although the tests are referred to as IQ tests, they can have more specific cognitive measurement uses, and broad differences between individuals are meaningful in those settings. These are the tasks and tests that minimize linguistic, educational and cultural effects in measurement, and have (for psychometrics) good validation practices and instructions behind them. It's been awhile, but I think the current Stanford-Binet and Weschler are considered valid if not applied outside intended settings and uses.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Oct 19, 2017

# ¿ Oct 19, 2017 17:53

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.

Sheesh, IFM's really proud that they learned to spell "ad hominem".

# ¿ Oct 21, 2017 23:40

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.

To be fair, if I could be the dude in that av, I would. A giant burning globe that I could gleefully rub my hands over is deffo going on my amazon wishlist.

# ¿ Oct 23, 2017 16:56

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.

Has anyone made the Voight-Kampf joke yet?

# ¿ Oct 25, 2017 18:16

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.

Goon Danton posted:

Isn't this one of those maxims that actually has empirical backing? Like, multiple studies on how people behave in games show that people with unfair advantages turn into colossal assholes about it.

Not really, that area of the social sciences is a mess and it's not a claim that can be meaningfully interrogated. There's a lot of research that suggests that power and advantages can make people monsters, but it varies intensely by a wide array of factors.

# ¿ Oct 26, 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.

Goon Danton posted:

Oh right, I keep forgetting about y'all's statistical tire fire. Gonna mail my copy of Thinking Fast and Slow back to Kahneman and make him fix it.

fwiw Kahneman is generally considered One of the Good Ones, at least as far as widely influential lay psych writing goes. He retracted the whole chapter of Thinking Fast and Slow that was based on bad research, and wrote a lengthy apology with later editions.

Mind you, I still don't trust the quality of that area of research very much, but that's pretty remarkable.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2017 01:19

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.

Cansomeone provide some examples of poor behavior by H3H3?

# ¿ Nov 9, 2017 06:55

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.

Attacks on postmodernism as a blanket term are often tied to critiques of postmodernist relativism(epistemological or moral) or obscurantism(think Sokal hoax). While postmodern movement thinkers in some fields do have genuine issues with both of these, the details of these more narrow and actor-specific problems have nothing to do with the person making the attack on "postmodernism" as a whole, because the person making the attack is unfailingly completely ignorant of the significant details involved. If they were familiar with the actual problem, they'd talk about it instead of "postmodernism".

# ¿ Nov 14, 2017 23:35

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.

Groovelord Neato posted:

imagine being so stupid you think anyone cares about misgendering some dragonkin weirdo that probably exists nowhere but a random tumblr post.

In an attempt to disprove your thesis I inadvertently found this. These things appear to reproduce by bleeding in each other's hands and don't poop, but they still have two genders. I...I forget where I was going with this.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2017 23:38

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.

Groovelord Neato posted:

do these guys really think high schoolers didn't gently caress back in the day??

They're basing it on their personal experience.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2017 23:53

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.

The entire alt-right being people with sublimated humiliation fetishes would explain a lot, honestly.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2017 15:21

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.

Guavanaut posted:

You'll never keep kids away from porn, even in the days of photocopies in the woods, but this isn't a moral argument about that, it's more that you'll never keep kids from cigarettes and booze either, but we still look down on stores that promote it to them.

We, um, do keep a lot of kids away from tobacco and alcohol with regulations. Opportunity cost and norm shifting is a thing that exists.

# ¿ Nov 17, 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.

ArfJason, I appreciate your dedication.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2017 06:42

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.

Are we really doing the first principles recursion dance in here?

# ¿ Nov 29, 2017 18:13

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.

Goon Danton posted:

Yep!

OK fluffs pillow someone wake me when something happens with youtube intellectuals please.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2017 19:18

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.

What's up with Sam Hyde and MDE? did he start as a comedian and become a racist, or was he a racist trying to mainstream himself through comedy?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2017 15:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 19:25

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.

Perhaps we goons should create our own composite youtube intellectual. I'm picturing a talking grenade with a monacle, top hat, full tuxedo, sunglasses, mortarboard, full beard, Spartan helmet, walking stick, MSPaint abs, full suit of armor from Dark Souls, and WW2 german infantry helmet.

[Problematic male historical figure/color/light level] [t/T]he [adjective conveying deeply rooted insecurities] [fictional nationality and/or fictional political ideological identifier] [object/animal/"animal"].

Feel free to drop, add, or reorder parts to your liking. If anyone with some coding ability wants to make a generator, please let us know so we can provide material for the lists.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Dec 4, 2017

# ¿ Dec 4, 2017 00:47

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

«‹›3 »