Truth Discussion Time - Page 66

On February 08 2018 02:15 RiKD wrote: Toxic masculinity is a thing. Fortunately it mostly exists in like Shittown, Alabama and frat houses at Vanderbilt University. But, I would imagine as you get outside of the red zones there is a lot of subdued toxic masculinity. It's there. It gets subconsciously or consciously put into action at times. Oh well, fuck it, I'm done writing for now.

As I said of course "masculinity" has negative traits like violence but to label that as toxic masculinity is stupid because emotional abuse is more prevalescent in women so then we will call that toxic femeninity so we nest all our negative gender tendencies into these categories, I'm sure that will bring us closer together -_-

On February 08 2018 02:55 VanDerMeyde wrote: "Bullying is a part of life. Figure out how not to be the weak target. Figure out how to take a joke. Figure out how to put in needles of your own." Well if you move from the countryside with a weird accent to fe. a rich area its not always that easy to stand up to the cool kids / or do and act the right way according to the new social set of rules there. And if you get a bad start you could be "marked" and not be able to fix your image. The coolest way to handle it I ever saw was some movie about a jewish kid that was bullied, he went to boxing classes everyday and eventually beat the f out of everyone.

Exactly, take jiu jitsu. Even an upper white belt will no longer make one an easy target.

I am saying bullying someone for being different is shit. Different accent, from the country, that is no reason to bully someone. I mean really the best way to handle it even with the social set of rules would be for someone to take the different person aside and tell them to wash their gym clothes and don't touch people who don't want to be touched, etc. Being "marked" as a freshman would really suck. That is 4 years of shit if they don't changed anything. He could become a blue belt in 1 or 2 years.

Chester the molester was still a douche in college he just found other douches (young republicans) and seemed to get along pretty well. He was adopted and had a lot of issues but it is going to be hard in this world to be a douche unless you can dominate everyone.

lol
Trudeau interrupting to show off how progressive he is and immediately getting accused of mansplaining is hilarious

Trudeau is a politician, he looked at some polls and decided "eeh the voters will like that" - don't get fooled by his "stupidity"

I always find it so amazing that we're rational beings, yet shit like this happens (which is extremely irrational when you look at the big picture). I wonder if 2 generations ago thought the new generation is dumb as fuck as well, probably did, so don't focus too much on all of that bullshit wannabe-liberal agenda, things will get sorted out eventually, hopefully without chaos in society


"Bullying" as a term is taken way out of context in Western societies already. Obviously, abuse of any kind shouldn't be allowed, but you shouldn't let children have conflicts with one another or you're essentially fucking their development up quite badly, protect the weak has turned into protect the dumb, which are two quite different things

gender neutral "O Canada" now at least

https://globalnews.ca/news/4011970/o-canada-lyrics-gender-neutral/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/o-canada-gender-neutral-melanie-joly-1.4524764

Not sure if serious..

On February 08 2018 23:23 Spitfiree wrote: Trudeau is a politician, he looked at some polls and decided "eeh the voters will like that" - don't get fooled by his "stupidity" I always find it so amazing that we're rational beings, yet shit like this happens

I dont think we use stupidity in the term of low IQ, more like a general insult.

We are not rational beings that sometimes have emotions, we are emotional beings that sometimes reason.

So I was reading an article on progressive's bias and I found a very interesting part:

According to the equalitarian model, progressives are dedicated egalitarians. They think that all individuals, all groups, all sexualities, and all sexes should be treated fairly*. They are also especially sensitive to potential threats to egalitarianism, so they adhere to the belief that all demographic groups are roughly equal on all socially valued traits, a belief we call cosmic egalitarianism. Perhaps the most common form of cosmic egalitarianism is blank slate-ism, or the belief that humans are nearly infinitely malleable, and that all important differences among them are caused by the environment, not genes

Does that sounds familiar with anybody's argument in this thread?

On February 09 2018 07:51 Baalim wrote: So I was reading an article on progressive's bias and I found a very interesting part: Show nested quote + According to the equalitarian model, progressives are dedicated egalitarians. They think that all individuals, all groups, all sexualities, and all sexes should be treated fairly*. They are also especially sensitive to potential threats to egalitarianism, so they adhere to the belief that all demographic groups are roughly equal on all socially valued traits, a belief we call cosmic egalitarianism. Perhaps the most common form of cosmic egalitarianism is blank slate-ism, or the belief that humans are nearly infinitely malleable, and that all important differences among them are caused by the environment, not genes Does that sounds familiar with anybody's argument in this thread?

Isn't there a bit of an irony here? This is an article about cognitive bias stressing the importance of genes over socio-cultural factors. So which genes are responsible for lower cognitive bias? We can think of genes that lead to higher IQ but higher IQ doesn't correlate with lower cognitive bias.

I like how he admits in the article that all his studies are severely flawed but somehow when you throw 3 or 4 of them together it's suddenly strong evidence. Personally, I thought the tests were quite silly and I would have had no issue judging the methodology on its own merit.

Fun fact: the author's email address is "Nietzche_48838@yahoo.com".

On February 10 2018 18:43 Loco wrote: Fun fact: the author's email address is "Nietzche_48838@yahoo.com".

I'm not certain about anything regarding the topic you guys are discussing about, but how is this relevant?

On February 10 2018 18:43 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On February 09 2018 07:51 Baalim wrote: So I was reading an article on progressive's bias and I found a very interesting part:   According to the equalitarian model, progressives are dedicated egalitarians. They think that all individuals, all groups, all sexualities, and all sexes should be treated fairly*. They are also especially sensitive to potential threats to egalitarianism, so they adhere to the belief that all demographic groups are roughly equal on all socially valued traits, a belief we call cosmic egalitarianism. Perhaps the most common form of cosmic egalitarianism is blank slate-ism, or the belief that humans are nearly infinitely malleable, and that all important differences among them are caused by the environment, not genes Does that sounds familiar with anybody's argument in this thread? Isn't there a bit of an irony here? This is an article about cognitive bias stressing the importance of genes over socio-cultural factors. So which genes are responsible for lower cognitive bias? We can think of genes that lead to higher IQ but higher IQ doesn't correlate with lower cognitive bias. I like how he admits in the article that all his studies are severely flawed but somehow when you throw 3 or 4 of them together it's suddenly strong evidence. Personally, I thought the tests were quite silly and I would have had no issue judging the methodology on its own merit. Fun fact: the author's email address is "Nietzche_48838@yahoo.com".

wrong, cognitive bias is correlated to IQ, the correlation is weak, but present, its also extremely obvious in studies about religiousness and IQ for example.

On February 10 2018 23:44 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2018 18:43 Loco wrote:   On February 09 2018 07:51 Baalim wrote: So I was reading an article on progressive's bias and I found a very interesting part:   According to the equalitarian model, progressives are dedicated egalitarians. They think that all individuals, all groups, all sexualities, and all sexes should be treated fairly*. They are also especially sensitive to potential threats to egalitarianism, so they adhere to the belief that all demographic groups are roughly equal on all socially valued traits, a belief we call cosmic egalitarianism. Perhaps the most common form of cosmic egalitarianism is blank slate-ism, or the belief that humans are nearly infinitely malleable, and that all important differences among them are caused by the environment, not genes Does that sounds familiar with anybody's argument in this thread? Isn't there a bit of an irony here? This is an article about cognitive bias stressing the importance of genes over socio-cultural factors. So which genes are responsible for lower cognitive bias? We can think of genes that lead to higher IQ but higher IQ doesn't correlate with lower cognitive bias. I like how he admits in the article that all his studies are severely flawed but somehow when you throw 3 or 4 of them together it's suddenly strong evidence. Personally, I thought the tests were quite silly and I would have had no issue judging the methodology on its own merit. Fun fact: the author's email address is "Nietzche_48838@yahoo.com". wrong, cognitive bias is correlated to IQ, the correlation is weak, but present, its also extremely obvious in studies about religiousness and IQ for example.

Give me your sources please. (I shouldn't have to ask) ... not that a weak correlation changes anything about the irony I pointed at.

On February 10 2018 19:58 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On February 10 2018 18:43 Loco wrote: Fun fact: the author's email address is "Nietzche_48838@yahoo.com". I'm not certain about anything regarding the topic you guys are discussing about, but how is this relevant?

Why does it have to be related to the topic? It's just humorous. We all know Nietzsche is the number one philosopher edgy teenagers get into. Looks like he was one of them and I found the misspelling and numbers charming. I guess if we wanted to make it related we could say there is a correlation between hardcore fans of Nietzsche (esp young adults) and having an illusory superiority bias...

On February 07 2018 21:08 RiKD wrote: Those pictures are an example of cultural marxism... uhhh... wut? Looks like the work of a conspiracy theorist to me. Like what? You can't just post pictures of people before and after they are "out" and blame culture marxism. You know gay people do exist. Lesbians, queers, transgendered folk too. Women can grow hair under their arms and not be communist. Many of those people just changed their haircut. The post is so bad it almost comes off as a troll.

"gay people exist" - say something blindingly obvious like it must be in contradiction to what anyone else thinks

it's telling that you think those pics are before and after people being "out" when I see before and after crazy, that's why you had to use scare quotes because you must know looking like a deluded freak is not a sexual orientation and you can't tell what people like to suck or insert by looking at them

look at a pic of sean hayes before and after he was out

note the sudden modern uptick now in "transgender" people, it can't be due to any kind of encouragement could it?

very few of them merely changed their haircut and usually women don't get buzzcuts, did you miss the che guevara and hammer and sickle? I'm sure at least half of those young scholars are conservatives

I don't care where anyone grows hair but duckfacing while taking armpit shots and putting it on a blog with freebleeding and smash the patriarchy is a little more than a hygiene or fashion choice

On February 07 2018 18:03 Santafairy wrote: [long fucking post I didn't read with a fun video]

>complains that Wikipedia is not a credible encyclopedia and suggests I deliberately avoided choosing a more neutral one
>doesn't link to an alternative encyclopedia when asked
>gives me his long-winded biased opinions when I specifically said I wasn't interested
>gives as 'evidence' of a massive conspiracy a link to an article from a tabloid and a YouTube video from fucking Andrew Breitbart, says he's a credible expert on philosophy

Breitbart says in the video Adorno was the most insidious. Yeah, Adorno's critique sure helped us crush the culture industry. It's not like Trump is president and people get most of their information from magazines and Facebook which push pop politics and fake news.

I like the Breitbart article where they say: "Theodor Adorno promoted degenerate atonal music to induce mental illness, including necrophilia, on a large scale." Now I know why I got a boner and an urge to google corpses while I was listening to Debussy earlier.

On February 11 2018 12:18 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2018 18:03 Santafairy wrote: [long fucking post I didn't read with a fun video] >complains that Wikipedia is not a credible encyclopedia and suggests I deliberately avoided choosing a more neutral one >doesn't link to an alternative encyclopedia when asked

no I was mocking your dependence on a central authority to tell you what's right (which has also never been the purpose of an encyclopedia)

just read wikipedia's own idea of what a conspiracy theory is and cultural marxism doesn't fit at all

wikipedia is huge, and not perfect, especially with contentious political points including like this one, and even this issue, what we're talking about now, is a subsection of one article, I don't depend on wikis but I doubt many others (much smaller) have content about what we're talking about at all, from either side

On February 11 2018 12:18 Loco wrote: >gives me his long-winded biased opinions when I specifically said I wasn't interested >gives as 'evidence' of a massive conspiracy a YouTube video from fucking Andrew Breitbart, says he's a credible expert on philosophy

the point again is it's not a conspiracy, it's beneath you to act this daft

why not be the bigger man and link those dozen neutral unbiased experts with no ideological agenda already, assholeface?

your whole shtick is esoteric "philosophers" when there are entire departments of self-appointed and co-perpetuating experts in colonialism and microaggressions and patriarchy in gender studies and queer studies and black studies and whatever other postmodernist studies have been invented so far

so you naively think my showing you Breitbart was me going "muh philosopher" because that's the only framework you know, no, I don't care about philosophers in your gatekeeping way and Breitbart isn't one, not everyone with a position or argument is a philosopher, you asked for someone to explain cultural marxism to you besides me so I knew to use Breitbart because the name alone is so predictably triggering and it draws out that you can't comprehend another side

On February 11 2018 12:18 Loco wrote: Breitbart says in the video Adorno was the most insidious. Yeah, Adorno's critique sure helped us crush the culture industry. It's not like Trump is president and people get most of their information from magazines and Facebook which push pop politics and fake news.

yeah people would be much better off installing 4 parlor walls in their living room streaming CNN sucking kim yo jong's clit just because north korea hates trump

trump is president despite the media

On February 11 2018 10:58 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On February 07 2018 21:08 RiKD wrote: Those pictures are an example of cultural marxism... uhhh... wut? Looks like the work of a conspiracy theorist to me. Like what? You can't just post pictures of people before and after they are "out" and blame culture marxism. You know gay people do exist. Lesbians, queers, transgendered folk too. Women can grow hair under their arms and not be communist. Many of those people just changed their haircut. The post is so bad it almost comes off as a troll. "gay people exist" - say something blindingly obvious like it must be in contradiction to what anyone else thinks it's telling that you think those pics are before and after people being "out" when I see before and after crazy, that's why you had to use scare quotes because you must know looking like a deluded freak is not a sexual orientation and you can't tell what people like to suck or insert by looking at them look at a pic of sean hayes before and after he was out note the sudden modern uptick now in "transgender" people, it can't be due to any kind of encouragement could it? very few of them merely changed their haircut and usually women don't get buzzcuts, did you miss the che guevara and hammer and sickle? I'm sure at least half of those young scholars are conservatives I don't care where anyone grows hair but duckfacing while taking armpit shots and putting it on a blog with freebleeding and smash the patriarchy is a little more than a hygiene or fashion choice

So, you posted about 20 or so people that are a bit different than the norm. So what? You are saying the professors are to blame for this? Che Guevara is a cool character. Becoming some semblance of an activist figure can add a tremendous amount of meaning to someone's life. Marx's writings are powerful stuff. It all could get a little misguided but it will take a long way to get to some point of the death and destruction of a Russia or Maoist China. All of those pictures were basically kids. Let them go through that phase if they must. Some will grow out of it to a certain extent and others to a lesser extent. Whatever. Some of those kids will go on to do great things with a well rounded education in history, politics, philosophy, psychology, economics, anthropology, sociology, etc. etc. etc. The real human condition type educations. The broad and valuable educations.

"It's not a conspiracy when I believe in it. Then it just becomes contentious."

It doesn't matter that it's relatively a small subsection on Wiki, there's 10 paragraphs with well over 50 sources. If it's there and it has survived multiple revisions, you don't get to just dismiss them by fiat because "Wikipedia isn't perfect". Then you link to something that's a thousand times less reliable as a counter. It's beneath you to engage with material you disagree with in this way. I never asked you to link me to someone who will explain Cultural Marxism to me, I asked you to give me something legit to read. Of course I knew ahead of time you couldn't do that.

I don't rely on Wiki as a central authority on philosophical matters, I use my own studies and the Stanford Encyclopedia for that. Surprise surprise, nothing about Cultural Marxism over there. Conclusion: the evil post-modernists who are destroying Western civilization must have won Stanford over.

"trump is president despite the media" lol, what does that even mean? The point is that Adorno was highly critical of media culture/mass culture: "The power of the culture industry's ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness." Trump wasn't elected by conscious people free from the influences of mass culture, and the role that popular culture plays in shaping Westerners at the moment is not the one you'd expect if Cultural Marxism was true and Adorno's influence was a leading one. Pretty obvious.


---

why not be the bigger man and link those dozen neutral unbiased experts with no ideological agenda already, assholeface?

The challenge you're issuing is designed to be unanswerable because no one is fully unbiased yet knowledgeable -- no one walks around with 'pure knowledge' and no values (and values lead to an ''agenda''). You'll always be able to decide that one expert or another is biased because you're biased against their values yourself. The best I can do is share some sort of public consensus between philosophers and historians as to whether the whole Cultural Marxism plot is tenable or not. But if you're knee deep into this conspiracy there is close to a 0% chance you'll care for them. However, if others are interested, here are some links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

On February 11 2018 09:55 Loco wrote: Give me your sources please. (I shouldn't have to ask) ... not that a weak correlation changes anything about the irony I pointed at.

So let me get this straight:

- You claim there is no correlation (without giving sources)
- I claim there is a correlation
- You ask for sources and smugly mention that you shouldn't even ask (hypocritial much?)
- Then you say that even if proven wrong on the correlation, it wouldn't change your point.


Here's a discussion about it if you feel like reading it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/d1u/the_new_yorker_article_on_cognitive_biases/

I also wish IQ had a stronger reverse correlation to cognitive bias, otherwise we wouldnt have smart people arguing for near-sighted collectivist dogmas