Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by aelf, Jul 23, 2020.
Great, thanks. Direct that to amadeus’ attention.
I'd think if anyone was gonna be canceled it would be the Democrat Party
Because American Social Progressives are still hoodwinked into believing that voting for, and supporting, the Democratic Party of the United States will actually get them anymore, and be supporting candidates who give a damn about them. They've got this "lesser of two evils," mentality they (like a lot of Americans, electorally, actually) forgetting that a fundamental part of selecting a "lesser of two evil," is that your still selecting an EVIL, and not anyone good or productive. Also, the American Social Progressives know full well how much the U.S. electoral system is actually rigged in favour of the Duopoly, and thus organizing a Third Party run is not in the card - but it's been tried. Even though the New Alliance Party with Presidential Candidate Leona Fulani in 1988 outpolled almost 3-1 the White Supremacist, Hyper-Nationalist Populist Party with none other than David Duke as Presidential Candidate, the two Duopoly Parties still divided EVERY SINGLE Electoral Vote and the vast majority of votes, and even the Libertarian Party outpolled the New Alliance Party by a significant margin.
And how does this relates to the discussion on cancel culture?
ok i know it's breadtube but here's shaun outlining why the bell curve is a blatantly atrocious and dishonest misuse of everything that is research, statistics etc
yes it's two½ hours but it's because it goes through the whole thing
amadeus is correct in that academia in an open society should be free to study this. it's also allowed in an open society to be willfully ignorant and misuse data for your own gains
even if you agree with the policies that the bell curve is trying to promote, The Bell Curve is bad science done poorly. its claims that it is demonstrating data that is taboo is laughable as the issues it outlines have been commonly known and discussed since forever in social studies, economics etc. the open debate is already there. The Bell Curve isn't taken seriously within academia, not because it's revealing taboo, but because it is done poorly and pretends it's something it's not. it's basically only used by pundits that actually don't read the literature at large or people that want their points proven, but don't care how. the book's misleading of the state and practices of academia is not only callous, it's most probably intentional. and again, if it's not intentional, it's just bad.
if you actually care about this stupid thing, watch the video and just ignore shaun when he pseudo sneers at policies you might like.
i'm sorry about the lowercase but i just can't even with this ridiculous thing
It was a response to @Berzerker's question as to the likely reason, in my estimation, why the Democratic Party of the United States isn't up for "cancellation." But that should have been obviously and easily figured out for yourself by the post you were quoting and the post of @Berzerker's, immediately above it, I was directly responding to.
What the hell is a Neo-Manichaean.
All I see is the same old talking points of "the right and the left are evil and they're bad, m'kay", nothing to do about cancel culture cept continuously pointing fingers at the progressives .
A curious wikiwalk has brought me to this: "Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness."
Huh, interesting. I have never heard anyone refer to a black-and-white worldview as neo-Manichaean but maybe that’s just because nobody else is that pretentious.
Even if this happens you'll just get the New Democrats in their place.
It was, again, an answer to someone else's question. And, believing both the Democratic Party of the United States and the Republican Party of the United States (which are NOT each a total HALF of the whole political spectrum in complete conceptuality, history, and global scope - they are just two political parties that only run, and are tied strictly to issues and ideologies, endemic to the United States ALONE, of which I am not a citizen, and not eligible to vote for, stand for, or be a member of either - God be praised for that - and thus, using the omnipresent terms "the Left," and "the Right," for them, respectively, is grossly inaccurate, fallacious, pretentious, and out-of-touch) have both failed utterly, and are made of high criminals, traitors, and corrupt cronies to big corporations, but rig elections so one of them always wins, and that Social Progressives are hoodwinked into supporting one of them loyally, that doesn't truly serve them or care about them, and takes their support for granted, does not make me all the things you and your dogpiling packmates have called me - it more shows the fools staunch of one Duopoly Party or another have been for all this time.
Sorry, I know I’m quoting out of context.
It’s there, but it’s not here.
Thanks for the video link. I’ve only watched a few minutes of it so far and it seems like the criticism will be fair. I might leave it on at some point just so I have some noise in my apartment; I get a little tense being locked inside all day what with what’s going around.
So, next time, try neo-Hericlitean.
You, of course, do realize your bad and annoying habit of correcting my grammar and spelling of obviously hastily written posts, or my admittedly unusual or anachronistic, but still valid, choice of terms, does not, in any meaningful way, discredit, disprove, diminish the points in my post - it just shows you to be irritating, juvenile, and having no worthwhile response to my posts. Just in case you were unaware of that.
Manichean is very nearly the opposite of what you want to convey.
Truly thanks for giving it a shot.
Shaun is quite far from what I think your politics are (afaik), and he presents the usual suspects of points that are left in the US, but if you can look past that you'll see it's a very good rundown of why the book is, well, not very good.
There are good right wing books out there. It's not one of them. ^^
One of the most bizarre phenomena in American politics is this "Democrats supported slavery/the KKK" thing, but then combined with the usual Lost-Cause defenses of the Confederacy and even of Jim Crow segregation. One can only imagine the mental gymnastics someone must perform to simultaneously think the Civil War was really about the big mean North and its bad tariffs, and also that the Democrats today are evil because the Democrats back then were proslavery
The author is stating that if the crack cocaine laws, which is one of the main arguments used that the justice system is racist, are to blame for the high incarceration rates it doesn't explain why there are so many black people in state and federal facilities overall, it's why the author goes on to say "or the 858,000 black prisoners in custody overall"
Drug crimes related from usage of drugs is a lot different to the crime of drug trafficking and that's part of the problem, drug usage leads people to do things they probably wouldn't even consider doing like stealing, acts of violence etc.
The problem with this kind of argument is you open yourself up and others alike for dismissal when you also provide an article to a discussion. There has been plenty of times other forum members have posted articles I could have just dismissed as some biased or non-credited article. It's the same for the "cherry picking" argument, when someone would say "oh you provided something in which the author cherry picks key points or data to suit there argument" (when this is the whole idea of presenting an argument anyway) and then dismiss the article/author because they just "cherry picked" examples or data, it just means that now we can all do that for future discussions that others provide. I try to avoid using these kinds of arguments. Its like the fake news arguments that politicians use to dismiss anything critical of them "oh that's just fake news" now be on your way.
Don't know the author or the book.
You do realize that everything I post on this matter actually debunks racist claims that actual white supremacists make, for example of the claim racists use that black and white people don't share the same intelligence I posted evidence that black and white people have the exact same intelligence with the post about black soldiers in Germany. I posted the fact that class plays a big part in criminal activity disproves the racist idea that black people are more prone to criminal activity because of the color of their skin, you do realize I've used a lot of these arguments on social media against actual racists that try and make racist claims and that they have no rebuttal to my claims?
Do you think I'm some white supremacist that comes on an off-topic gaming forum section to espouse racist beliefs whilst at the same time having respectful discussions with black people?
I could assume that you are racist towards white people with some of your commentary, very much when you use the term white privilege you know well and truly that it's said in a derogatory way regardless whether the term has any veracity or not, you're not saying it in a way to enlighten white people as to why you think they are privileged, you only need to look at in which context its being used especially on social media to understand that it most certainly is being used in a derogatory manner. Imagine telling a poor white person who is living day to day as they watch their weekly pay check disappear in a couple of days just to buy food and pay bills that they are privileged.
It was a big time failure, typical knee jerk reactionary policies from clueless politicians and ultimately a no win situation, either they act on the problem and their racists or they don't act on the problem and their racists.
South Carolina threatened secession in the 1820-30s over tariffs, so the civil war can and did have multiple causes. I think its bizarre for people claiming the moral high ground to join a party with such a prolonged evil history.
And let us not forget, Democrats want us to vote for the guy who lied us into a war with Iraq after replacing Jim Crow with a drug war so the evil Democrats are still around seeking power and you're voting for him.
Who's claiming the moral high ground, and with regards to what are they claiming it? What's the context here?
Separate names with a comma.