|
Discendo Vox posted:I wonder how many years we are from a livestreamed serial killer with a patreon account. I remember reading some manga where the premise is that there's this Youtube like service and people directly receive a bunch of money if they manage to rank high in terms of views but are forced into debt if they don't. This ends up leading to a bunch of people filming themselves committing increasingly disturbing crimes in order to get attention. I think there was also some element where the Youtube-equivalent would cover up your crimes and pay for the equipment you used if you got a bunch of views (and force the people who didn't get many views to cover the material and criminal costs).
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:Speaking of Thunderf00t.. I've actually accidentally came upon his Twitter account and he was... berating alt-right dudes for using Nazi imagery. Eh, the fact that there are some alt-right/gamergate/whatever people who aren't Literal Nazis isn't really much of a defense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Whorelord posted:why is h3h3 productions so popular Nah, that's just sorta how Israeli people sound in my experience (I worked with this Israeli PhD student* during an internship in college and she sounded almost identical) , and it seems obvious to me that she is pretty awkward on camera. I can sort of understand the appeal of the "find ridiculous YouTube stuff like that PrankInvasion guy and make fun of it" content, but I'm not sure why the h3h3 guy specifically became so popular since he's not especially funny (or good looking enough to attract the teen girls audience like Pewdiepie). * As a side note, I remember her REALLY wanting me to go live in Israel after she found out I was Jewish. I remember being kind of confused by how enthusiastically she was trying to sell the country to me. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Lol no don't go there, Israel is an apartheid state full of racists committing ethnic cleansing, don't fall for their cultish indoctrination campaigns. Oh, I'm well aware. I just found it interesting how apparently at least some Israelis think it's this really important mission to try and attract other Jews to the pseudo-motherland.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Forceholy posted:If I remember correctly, she did serve in the Israeli military before she started the channel with Ethan. Maybe it's a habit from her service? I was referring to the Israeli PhD student I worked with, not the h3h3 lady.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hard science > soft science people are daft. Yeah no poo poo if you limit your questions to easily quantifiable things you get more easily quantifiable answers. Congrats on playing on babby mode. Probably the only potential element of truth to those arguments is that some "soft" sciences have equal need of people skilled in statistics/mathematics but fewer people who actually have those skills, resulting in poor use of statistics (though this is also a problem in "hard" sciences). But that's completely unrelated to the validity of the fields themselves and is likely mostly a result of there being less money to be made in soft science research. If anything it's a sign that people need to take those fields more seriously. Groovelord Neato posted:his videos making fun of/exposing pranksters and tai lopez were good. the recent video where he meets tai lopez is great because there are like five lawyers just lurking around as they walk through the rented mansion (also tai's nice cars are all leased to his company). His videos made me aware of the existence of that bizarre Youtube kissing porn. I guess those videos are like the modern day version of your dad's Playboys or something, only without actual nudity.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
The "funny" thing is that all the complaints about black people performing worse due to "personal responsibility", if taken to their logical conclusion, are essentially claims that black people are genetically inferior to whites. Because if you deny that their outcomes are the result of the environments and conditions imposed on them historically, literally the only other possible conclusion is "they're naturally worse" which equates to "because they're genetically inferior." Like, the only two options here are "they behave a certain way due to being exposed to different conditions than whites" or "they behave in a certain way because they are literally genetically predisposed to do so"; there's no third option. I don't know if a lot of the people saying this sort of stuff even realize what their opinions directly imply. There isn't really any grey area between a literal Nazi "some races are inherently inferior to others" view and acknowledging that different outcomes are the result of people being exposed to different circumstances outside of their control.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I would say there is a difference between judging a person based on their color and wanting to literately exterminate races because they are a sickness of the societal organism. I was referring specifically to the Nazi view that different races differ genetically in some way that makes them behave differently or be less intelligent. On an individual level I would agree that it makes sense to hold people accountable for the bad things they specifically do, but on a societal level I would actually say that it makes no sense to just assume that (for example) Trump's election is the result of a bunch of people spontaneously becoming more evil or whatever. There are reasons trends happen at the level of large populations, and if you want those trends to change you have to change the circumstances that lead to them. If you see a difference between two large populations of people, the only two possible reasons are 1. the populations are literally biologically different, which influences their behavior or 2. environment/conditions lead to the difference in behavior. So if someone denies the latter they're directly implying the former. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:47 on May 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Whole scholarly papers could be written about these folks' preoccupation with the word "cuck" and the concept of cuckoldry. Like, there's so much there to unpack.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:What nerd hobbies don't have resentful reactionary scum in them? I feel like, to some extent, it matters whether a community is primarily based online. Back in college (2004-2008) I was part of this anime/gaming social group, and it was at least half women and they were generally really good people who were very socially liberal. Occasionally more stereotypical noxious nerds came, but they would never fit in. I think this is at least partly because, in person, it's a lot harder to get away with a lot of the poo poo nerds do/say online. By the end of college I ended up growing apart from that group (I wasn't really as into geek hobbies as everyone else), but I still look back on them fondly. I'm not sure how much of that was due to this being in a pre-Gamergate(etc) era and how much was due to me attending a large college in NYC. The Atheist organization I went to during my freshman/sophomore years was also mostly women and very socially liberal; it was pretty much the polar opposite of current Atheist stereotypes. I think that it's easier to express terrible opinions online, because you don't actually have to visibly see women/minorities/whatever in the room with you and deal with their reactions. But online you don't have to fear any sort of recourse, so you can just say whatever terrible poo poo you want. Other people who agree with your terrible views then feel comfortable cheerleading them and next thing you know everything is terrible.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
I'm wondering how much all this "anti-SJW" stuff is due to the decreased prominence of the fundamentalist Christian right-wing as the most obvious "counter-culture" target. Like, ~back in my day~ young edgy people almost universally targeted conservatives (who conveniently actually were bad), but now that they don't seem to have the same position in society that they used to (referring specifically to the fundamentalist right, not the right-wing in general) it seems like these sorts of people have fragmented, with a portion turning their anger against "SJWs".
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't think there's a sharp divide between anti SJW and older reactionary stuff. It may be less religious, but to be honest it really, really reminds of the 'Political Correctness Gone Mad (PCGM)' that you often hear from older people. I know my dad is a lot like that, he isn't at all religious (to an unusual extent given his age group and the fact that he's Irish) he doesn't use the terms like SJW but a lot of the underlying ideology is almost exactly the same, such distrust of Muslims because they refuse to integrate and their beliefs are intrinsically violent. Oh, the ideas are certainly the same as "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE WILD!!!" people of the past, but I'm more wondering about the motivations and what is causing this stuff to become more popular with young people specifically. With old people it's largely a "back in my day it was okay to make racist jokes!" thing, but that aspect doesn't really exist for the college-aged kids who are getting into this stuff now. My post was mainly wondering if increased positive coverage of social justice related topics in the mainstream media has made it a target for the same sort of people who would have ranted about FOX news back during the Bush years.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
At best, it certainly doesn't make sense to afford robots any more rights than we afford simple animals, like mice (and we certainly don't give mice or most other non-pet animals funerals under most circumstances). I can't think of any argument where it makes sense to afford robots (assuming current and near-future technology, at least) more rights than we afford random animals. If anything, the interaction between humans and many animals is more "real" than the interaction between humans and robots. The problem with the "if robots can interact with humans, that means they're having a meaningful relationship" logic is that humans can interact with a wide variety of non-living objects and form emotional connections with them. Just like it's okay (if not a bit strange) for a person to have a funeral for their car, it's technically okay to have one for a robot, but it is absurd to think that it should be expected. If we give funerals for robots, we may as well give them for any animal that has interacted with humans as well. Basically, current robots are more or less just more complex versions of writing a "if a person says X, make the program say Y" program. The code can be written in ways that allow them to learn from their interactions, but ultimately they're still following a set of rules dictated by code written by humans (even if those rules allow new rules to dynamically be added/changed). You could say the same for living organisms, but the level of complexity is dramatically different and you have to draw the line somewhere (since most people would obviously agree that we should give other humans rights) and current robots are far closer to simple programs than they are actual life.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Also I'm pretty sure that if you're going to treat the destruction of service robots as a unique crime (distinct from regular destruction of public property) the same standards would need to apply to every smart phone with Siri (or whatever Google's version is called) installed on it. They are both things humans can pseudo-communicate with and create the limited illusion of sentience.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:They've been at each other on twitter for several days now. It's honestly kind of pathetic. Especially when Sargon is all "I dont care about what I put on twitter, its twitter who cares" but holy poo poo if you insult him or accuse him of something his ego just shatters. The people who are the most vocal about how they have a thick skin and don't get offended (and criticize others for being babies who take offense too easily) seem to almost always have even thinner skin than the people they criticize. I wonder what the psychology is behind all the people who complain about people "being triggered" constantly being triggered themselves. I guess it's just projection?
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
As a somewhat random Youtuber-related comment, something about that way that Philip Defranco guy talks really annoys me. Like, he always has this "guy walking up to a clearly-upset girl and acting concerned in a poorly concealed attempt to hit on her" tone of voice and demeanor. Or like he's trying to heavily emphasize the face that he's being honest and "real" with his audience. It's hard to explain, but it is super obnoxious. edit: Like I can easily see that guy walking up to some upset girl and sitting really close next to her and putting his arm around her while ignoring her obvious discomfort with the situation. aware of dog posted:Longer videos means more ads they can put in? I want to say that there's something about Youtube's monetization system that means you have to make videos be over a certain length to optimize ad income. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:that is the perfect way to describe how he talks and emotes. it's loving terrible. most youtube people have lovely voices/manner of speaking/expressions and i dunno how they grab a following. I think a big part of it is that a huge portion of some of these folks' viewing base are literal teenagers (this is at least definitely the case with Defranco and probably also Laci Green). Teenagers don't really have a developed or normal (for an adult) sense of whether behavior is awkward and often just sort of assume "if this person is relatively good looking and energetic in their mannerisms, they must be also be funny", so a lot of behavior that is clearly kinda strange or awkward to adults comes off as really appealing to them. I think that "super random monkeycheese" humor is probably the best example of this, at least when referring to my generation (went to high school 2000-2004). There's also an element of Youtube-specific culture and behavioral norms that seem really weird to anyone not already immersed in that "community".
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Are you talking about H. Bomberguy or the nazis? One thing I will admit about HBomberguy's videos is that, while they're good at owning dumb Youtubers, it's a little cringeworthy when he does that "obviously forcing himself to act like he's laughing a bunch" thing. Like I get that he's trying to indicate that the clip he just showed (or whatever) is so dumb/bad that it warrants a bunch of laughing, but it's really obviously being forced on his part.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:for the same reason they don't write articles instead of making long rear end videos - they love to hear themselves speak and are convinced of their superior intellects. the audience for people who want lovely vlogs instead of vlogs tends to prefer people speaking instead of reading and understanding the written word, i'll leave the implication hanging Yeah, I can understand videos being preferable when you actually edit various things into your videos (like HBomberGuy or Contrapoints do) but those who watch the people who literally just sit there talking in front of mic (or, worse, just show a static image of the sound of their own voice) really confuse me.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
I feel like the best way to avoid potential "false positives" in situations like this is to only prosecute people if they've repeated such hate speech multiple times. The risk of a single time being due to stupidity/immaturity is too high to warrant legal consequences/jail time, but it's very unlikely they'd do such a thing multiple times without actually meaning it on some level. Note that I'm only talking about criminal punishment; I don't mind if people are fired from their jobs for doing stuff like this.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
I can pretty confidently say that I've never completely ignored the obvious personality/ideological flaws of girls I've dated or been interested in. This girl I dated in high school was a supporter of Bush (I entered HS in 2000) and even in high school I would argue with her about it and didn't somehow convince myself it was a good thing. Like, yeah, I still kept dating her because she was attractive and I thought the pros outweighed the cons, but I didn't ignore the cons, if that makes sense.business hammocks posted:I love Contrapoints, but his "dark mother, cold mother" riffs on her do a disservice to what she's about, although I like him have probably lost the capacity to be shocked without prompting. I'm pretty sure that's just a joke about how alt-right people think all "SJW" folks worship and follow Sarkeesian.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Every addiction is fundamentally an issue of avoiding one's real problems. Even heroin addicts have to confront the problems in their lives that led them to heroin addiction as a means of avoidance and escape, and that's as important--maybe more important--than breaking physiological dependency, which clears up in about a month and just gives you headaches and bad diarrhea. This definitely isn't always true. I'm pretty sure that evidence points towards some people being biologically predisposed towards finding certain substances addictive, and if you're talking about certain drugs the physiological dependence is enough on its own to prevent recovery. What most lay people don't understand is that the physiological effects (with opioids at least, and I think also benzodiazepines and alcohol) aren't just limited to the acute withdrawal that just lasts several days to a week or so. Long-term addiction can also cause additional physical effects (post-acute withdrawal syndrome) that can last months, if not years, after the drug is discontinued. This is arguably the biggest reason why long-term opiate addicts are so rarely able to become permanently clean. Obviously psychological issues can exacerbate this, but they aren't always present or necessary. Also lol at the idea of describing withdrawal as just "headaches and bad diarrhea." That might be true for really trivial addictions, but the withdrawal from serious addiction is horrifying enough to be a sufficient deterrent on its own, and the more times you experience it the more the memory of it gets drilled into your head.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:But I'm a dirty "elitist" who thinks we should be pushing educated and intelligent people forward, so I guess you can finish accusing me of being a double secret libertarian or whatever is the current boogeyman of the hour. I understand and sympathize with elitist arguments like this (since being educated is obviously important for running a society), but it's also important to keep in mind that systems that promote educated elites will also tend to be run disproportionately by wealthy (or at least well-off) individuals with their own biases. When your society/government is run almost entirely by a bunch of people from comfortable upper/upper-middle class backgrounds who attended elite universities, it's generally not going to properly understand or value the experiences of the poor. You end up with a situation similar to our current one, where the ruling class is risk-averse and unwilling to take any significant action to address issues like poverty, because they're not the ones exposed to that harm. They have more to lose from change than they have to gain, so they oppose it. It's not a simple problem, and it's true that the answer isn't just to replace the current ruling class with a bunch of random uneducated people. But I think there has to be some sort of better balance, where people with power have an education but aren't universally from the same sort of wealthy, elite backgrounds.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Complaints about transnational capital run by "elites" seem to just be the same old poo poo with enough of a new coat of paint to sell to the left. Specifically regarding elites, while many people who complain about them may not know what they're talking about, they definitely still exist. I went to school with a bunch of people who are basically the elites of tomorrow (basically a bunch of people who went on to work at elite financial/consulting/law firms, etc), and almost universally (literally all but maybe two or three of the people I knew) these people came from backgrounds where one or both parents were at least reasonably well off and worked in a professional field and they were provided a variety of great opportunities while growing up. This results in what is effectively an aristocracy of educated, financially secure people living in urban enclaves who are mostly isolated from people outside of their general income level. (There's also the higher level of billionaire super-elites, but I'm mostly talking about people who directly run our government and business institutions or have the possibility of doing so in the future.) The problem isn't so much that people like this don't recognize problems with poverty and income inequality (though obviously sometimes they don't), but that they don't feel any urgency to fix those problems since they're unaffected by them. To them, it doesn't really matter if we fix those issues in 5 years or 50 years, since it's ultimately just an intellectual question rather than something with real consequences. So even though, on some level, they genuinely want to fix those issues, they're unwilling to take any risks to do so. They more heavily weight potential future harm over harm in the present, because harm in the present doesn't affect them and future harm might.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What is "tumblr liberalism" in this context and why is it bad? I don't know if this is what is being referred to, but I find there's a certain strain of liberalism that seems to genuinely enjoy the idea of being correct and cares far more about laying burns on conservatives than actually creating concrete positive change. The main reason I notice this is that this is basically how I was until the end of college or so. Even though I wouldn't have admitted it at the time, on some level I truly enjoyed the Bush years because it was honestly fun to make fun of conservatives and point out their latest gently caress-ups. There was some comfort in knowing I was right and these other people were evil and wrong. I've noticed a resurgence of this same attitude since Trump was elected. It is transparently obvious that many liberals actually enjoy being able to make fun of the president's latest dumb tweets, and they like the feeling of "being part of something big/important" that comes from being part of the ~#resistance~ or whatever. I think part of the reason there's a backlash is that the people who focus heavily on laying burns on Trump usually don't focus much on any sort of positive change that goes beyond thwarting Republican malfeasance. So you end up with people who are deeply unhappy with the status quo who see a bunch of financially secure liberals treating politics as some sort of fun debate and ignoring the issues that concern them. You then sometimes end up with these people making the association between liberals like this and social issues, which results in them thinking of said social issues as being somehow opposed to their own concerns. This is of course nonsense, but it's at least partially the unfortunate result of liberals neglecting to address issues like wealth inequality, etc. edit: I think Contrapoints illustrates this issue pretty well. He frequently discusses social issues and is even genderqueer himself, but he is received far more positively by many non-SJW peopple than other "SJW" Youtubers, and I believe this is at least partly because he makes an honest attempt to explain his positions (rather than just wanting to lay down sweet burns) and also makes it clear that he is aware that there are other serious problems with the status quo. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well that's not nonsense because liberals are opposed to rectifying wealth inequality because economic liberalism is explicitly pro wealth inequality and if someone advertises as a liberal they are almost invariably economically liberal. No, I mean that it's nonsense that social issues are opposed to stuff like rectifying wealth inequality. As for your second paragraph, I generally agree that this is more of a mainstream liberal thing than some "tumblr SJW"-specific thing, though I would argue that "tumblr SJWs" are perceived as a sort of extreme version of American liberals in general (i.e. they're perceived as an exaggerated version of the flaws that already exist with liberals). For example, someone might get the general impression that liberals don't care about the poor economy, and then when they see some goofy Tumblr post it inflames that anger. Taken alone, there's obviously nothing wrong with making fun of Trump or whatever, but people can tell from reading liberal op-eds or watching liberal politicians and pundits on TV that such discourse has a disproportionate presence. Economic problems aren't focused on much unless it's in the specific context of Republicans being bad. Heck, even social issues are usually only focused on in the context of the bad things Republicans are doing; there's no real solutions given for addressing issues like systemic racism that go beyond thwarting Republicans or people independently policing each others' behavior (which I agree is important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I think Contra mostly gets people that aren't really ideologically inclined against sjws, but happened into the internet war at the wrong place and got blasted with all the "fat feminist OWNED"/"tumblr pronoun lists" memespiel and decided they had to be against sjws. So yeah, his earnestness helps him a lot because those people just suddenly see an rampant sjw who makes jokes and likes the a e s t h e t i c and suddenly they have to see sjws as human beings again. Kind of like those racists on tv that go to a Muslim meet-n-greet and back down in a day. Yeah, and those are the people that we need to attempt to persuade, in my opinion. They're a minority and there's nothing you can do to change the "true believers", but even small percents can make a big difference when it comes to political elections.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Honestly, I think a lot of the negative leftist sentiment towards Wonder Woman is a guilt by association thing related to the strong support from typical "white feminist" types (I'm not sure how else to describe the sort of feminist who just cares about stuff like "go women!" capitalist branding and what have you). This is of course wrong, since it's entirely possible for bad/dumb people to like good things (and plenty of good people also like Wonder Woman). In general, I think that a lot of leftists fall into the trap of making this sort of guilt by association judgement call. They see liberals supporting something and immediately view it more critically than they otherwise would. And it's not entirely unreasonable to do this, but it becomes a problem when you refuse to even entertain the possibility of such a thing being good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
^^^ As another poster mentioned, Green comes off as genuinely kinda dumb in the sort of way teenagers are dumb. How old is she? I could see this sort of thing being excusable for someone under the age of 23 or so.khwarezm posted:I don't know about that, sometimes people mention Gal Gadot's lovely Israeli nationalism, but the idea that the problem with Wonder Woman is to do with the 'Woke Brands' fakeness? I just don't see that expressed, most criticism is aimed at a perceived lack of quality rather than being perniciously milquetoast Liberal in such a way as to undermine leftism. The very fact that its a Hollywood blockbuster makes it an intrinsically Capitalist product, but then so is Star Wars, and the Fast the Furious, and the Marvel franchises, and Batman and so many other things. When I talk about these things among friends that's just an understood part of engaging with such a product. And those same Liberals also loved Mad Max, but again, you don't see as much critique of that. Yeah, I forgot about the issue with Gadot, though there's kinda a separate argument there as to whether it makes sense to critique the movie on an artistic level on the basis of an actor being a bad person*. I could definitely be off-base about the nature of the criticism here, though I still think it's true that leftists have a tendency to view something more critically if it has significant vocal support among liberals. And, as I mentioned in my previous post, this isn't necessarily a bad thing (I'm a leftist who does this to some degree), as long as people ensure the resulting criticism is still valid. *I would argue that it kinda depends upon the specific nature of the actor's moral failings and the nature of the movie they're acting in; as an extreme example, having a Nazi act as a liberator in a movie with general oppression/genocide themes would be hosed up enough to impact the message of the movie itself. So I guess the situation with Gadot is actually kinda similar to this. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I can't believe Samantha Bee fell for that bullshit conversion. I have a pretty easy time believing it. Deriving sexual pleasure from the idea of ~persuading political opponents through rational discourse~ is a very common liberal trait.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Liberals cede ground too easily. They've already accepted Ronald Reagan as not pure evil and they are now saying Bush Jr. wasn't so bad, he was just surrounded by a cabal of evil geniuses. Liberals enjoy the feeling of finding common ground with their ideological opponents, because they feel like doing so intrinsically makes them more open-minded and reasonable. I think that there's also some sort of sense that, by ceding ground on some issues, they can gain a sort of "political capital" to use later in a discussion (for example "I acknowledged this aspect of your argument so surely you should acknowledge some aspect of mine in return"). Both these things are understandable feelings to have, but they're obviously still dumb and wrong. Ultimately, this is a reflection of the fact that liberals have no real ideology or conviction of their own beyond opposition to elements of other peoples' ideologies. They know that they dislike some things conservatives want*, but they don't really have any ideal for how the future should be that goes beyond repelling threats to the status quo. Sometimes they might say something about wanting to revive New Deal policies, but generally speaking this only comes up if you specifically pressure them to articulate their ideal future; if left to their own devices, liberals will almost always choose to focus all their effort on condemning Republicans. *And honestly I think a lot of this is dependent upon cultural identifiers. Someone who identifies as a liberal and doesn't have various characteristics associated with being conservative (like being old, white, and generally socially conservative) can get away with proposing the same sort of stuff as conservatives, provided they avoid any sort of language that overtly sounds conservative (*cough* Jon Ossoff *cough*). The same thing is true for conservatives, who are often willing to consider liberal ideas as long as they're wrapped up in language they haven't already been taught to disagree with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Kjoery posted:conservatives don't actually care for Sorkin's dumb rules, if you own them with Reason and Logic, they're not going to say "oh, well, ya got me" - they're going to deflect and filibuster. compromising on one bill won't mean that you'll gain ground in others, because they don't care. this applies to the tactics the Skeptics employ as well - intellectual honesty means very little to them, as long as it means they can "Win". people who strive to maintain convictions and Play By The Rules are incredibly disadvantaged against such tactics. And honestly the conservatives are right in this strategy; it just so happens that the underlying ideology driving their actions is terrible and harmful. But if you actually believe that your ideas are good for society, shouldn't you do whatever you can to actually implement them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Kjoery posted:while authoritarian conservatives are a dime a dozen in my experience, i've met very few leftists with a "the ends justify the means" philosophy - think of all the nerd media we've consumed that have taught us the intricacies of complex moral dilemmas with no simple solution. what would Jean Luc Picard do??? Oh, to be clear I'm not talking about doing stuff that is inherently unethical or anything (which causes its own sort of harm). I'm just talking about stuff like only compromising when you absolutely don't have a choice and using all the tools (ethically) available to you to pursue your goals.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
You know, what confuses me about Patreons for very large sums (like the aforementions $50k/month) is that Patreon shows you their current earnings, so you know if they're already making a lot of money. Adding to the Patreon of someone already earning a really high income (especially for something like Youtube videos*) seems like the equivalent of donating money to rich people. Almost any other form of charity would be better than that. I usually only give to Patreons if the person is making under $2k/month (unless I really like their content, in which case I might raise that limit, though even then I sure as hell wouldn't add to the Patreon of someone already making the equivalent of six figures yearly). I can't imagine being the sort of person who likes a random Atheist Youtuber so much that they're willing to donate to them despite them already making a huge amount of money. In general Patreon seems like a really good website for certain people, like artists. People generally find it a lot more palatable to throw a few dollars biweekly at someone than to periodically spend larger amount of money. There's this one very skilled artist I like, and she was struggling to turn her art into a career (through selling prints, books, and commissions, which give pretty bad margins after printing costs from what I understand) before Patreon, but now she pulls in enough to comfortably do it full-time from Patreon alone (IIRC she makes about $2k/month just from Patreon). *I could understand if the videos in question were heavily produced and not just a dude sitting in front of a microphone. Like, say what you will about the Game Theory guy (and I don't particularly like his stuff), but his videos at least come off as a professionally made product that he probably has to work at least full-time hours to create. business hammocks posted:Patreon takes a sizable cut too, I believe. Is that cut before or after what you see on the website? Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I never understand this. $24K a year is a poo poo salary, and going by your model that's all someone should expect from a Patreon. If I think an object or service is valuable, its value is 100% untied to how much the person who created it makes. I don't donate to much of the stuff being discussed here, but I am in the $5-10 monthly for a few podcasts I enjoy. I look at it closer to a public radio donation style system, where you donate to the stuff you like so that the costs in getting it made are covered, along with money to support people enough that they don't just use that time to do something more valuable. If someone makes something that has actual broad appeal and makes $100K a year from it, good for them. I think it depends upon the product and circumstances to a degree. I was just thinking of artists who produce tangible products and also make money from selling those products, so in that case the Patreon is more of a "something in addition to what they make from sales to make it easier for them to do this full-time" rather than direct payment for a service (since I'll just directly buy the specific things I want from them). For someone who relies entirely on Patreon, I agree that it probably makes sense to want them to make more money than what I stated. One thing I may have also forgotten to consider is taxes. I'm assuming they have to pay taxes on whatever they make from the Patreon? The reason I mentioned ~$2k is that, despite my on-paper wage being $17.50/hr, my take-home after taxes and health insurance is only about $2,100-2,200/month, and I consider what I make to be at the bottom end of what should be considered a living wage. But if they're paying taxes after that $2k then I should probably readjust that figure to more like $3,000-$4,000, or more if they rely entirely on Patreon. I guess my more general point would be that I generally don't see any benefit to providing anyone more than about $60-70k per year in the form of strict donations (as opposed to transactions that actually get you a product). Like, there's a point where it becomes dumb to make a person who already has a comfortable life even more comfortable if you're not getting anything directly in return, since you may as well put that money towards someone who actually needs it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:True. Well, that's part of it. For many of these people, being racist is now the edgy, counter-culture thing. Having grown up in schools and a society that, at least conceptually, condemned racism, they start to think that maybe the edgy, hardcore reality is that some races are genetically inferior or whatever. I think that many of these people get a feeling of enjoyment from openly and boldly asserting things that society generally condemns. edit: It's like the political version of someone loudly shouting racial slurs for the "thrill" of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:They believe (or at least say that) they're being counter-cultural by shocking people with racism in the same way hippies used to shock squares by growing long hair. Yes, and I think that many/most of the hippies weren't really fundamentally much better people; it was just more or less a coincidence that the culture they were rebelling against was actually bad. Of course, this generation went on to enthusiastically gut safety nets and weaken the power of labor, since their ideology was defined primarily by opposition to things they associated with "old stodgy conservative Republicans".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I believe you are overthinking this. It's the same thing as always with racism. A bunch of dudes with fairly low value need to have something so that they aren't at the bottom. Race is a good fallback if you're white, because it has a huge and long history. It's not edginess or anything like that, it's simply people trying to get a dishonest dollar or two. It depends what specific demographics you're talking about; I'm mainly referring to the sort of young people who heavily use the internet and post on websites like 4chan. They're obviously different than, say, a conservative Baby Boomer who is a big fan of more typical, establishment Republican racism. As a side note related to your post, I really don't like this "lol dumb poor whites want more than they deserve and don't realize they're worthless" stuff. It's fine to condemn the bad views people actually have, but using some super classist bizarre inverse version of a welfare queen argument isn't going to make you any friends. Part of the reason I dislike liberals so much is that I work with and know a whole bunch of people who basically fit the mold of "white person born into a middle or upper class family who received a higher education and now works in an academic/professional field", and the extent to which they disdain people on the basis of being poor and/or rural is downright scary. Pretty much any cultural identifier associated with poverty that isn't also tied to an ethnic minority is mocked*. When they're among people they believe to be peers they start "joking" about how we should sterilize poor rednecks or whatever. If you spent a lot of time around people like this, it quickly becomes very obvious that they genuinely enjoy the feeling of being able to freely look down upon others. All of this ties into my general belief that Democrats/liberals represent the attitudes and interests of the "comparatively smart/educated wealthy" while Republicans/conservatives represent the interests of the "stupid, actively malicious wealthy." The former is unquestionably superior to the latter, but neither are really allies to people who lack wealth and power. *Actually, many liberals will also mock certain minorities, though they tend to do it along a combination of racial and class lines (for example making fun of "saggy jeans" or whatever). Groovelord Neato posted:i would assume someone who's making youtube videos has a full time job so that 24k on top is enormous. Depends what kind of Youtube videos. There's a difference between people who just ramble into a mic (like Sargon, etc) and folks like HBomberguy and Contrapoints that at least make some attempt to produce something more complex and interesting (in terms of presenting material in a way that isn't just rambling speech). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Sorry, but I legit believe in meritocracy. These guys don't have the state or society making GBS threads on them, so they don't have an excuse for being as unsuccessful as they are. I got out of that culture (grew up in the lovely hills in western MD, though you couldn't tell so much now with 40 years of growth from DC showing up) and gain some level of success. Why the hell should I offer to bail them out to the guy who's just going to poo poo on me because I got out, gave up god, and found out I liked screwing dudes? Doubly so when it's going to cost us immigration, which is the primary way we've stayed a step ahead of other parts of the world. I don't want to see any sterilized, but I do think that free and effective birth control and abortion will basically decimate that population. Just because minorities have it even worse doesn't mean that the non-minority poor aren't also at a severe disadvantage. A person's parents' economic status is probably the single biggest barrier to future economic success; when people talk about white privilege they're just talking about the fact that white people have an easier time than minorities all other things equal. If you absolutely had to do a comparison, in most cases a well-off minority is going to have more economic opportunities than a poor white (though obviously they'll still be worse off than a white person of equal economic means). Honestly, I find attitudes like this just as appalling as people who claim that minorities should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Your argument about how it's possible to go from a poor background and become well-off could also apply to minorities. The point isn't that it's impossible for a poor person or a black person to become wealthy; it's that it's much more difficult. If white person success (which you seem to be implying is uniquely meritocratic) were really determined by innate moral virtue/work ethic/etc, economic mobility would be far higher. edit: To be honest, I feel like attitudes like rkajdi's here are coming from the exact same place as racism; it's just channeled in a way that is more palatable to the cultural spheres the person in question associates with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_YEe7jLVc I listened to this on the drive to work this morning. It's hilarious how much he (pigeon guy) butchers his interpretation of that first study. I think that what people like him do is just google "recent studies showing immigration is bad*" and reference whatever pops up first. *Admittedly, googling this sort of thing isn't always necessarily bad as long as you still read the results critically and also search for studies representing the opposing view (to see how credible and common they are) Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 21:43
|
|