Not long ago we had a discussion where some people claimed that publications like TNTY, WaPo, etc are slightly right leaning and with a huge difference in journalistic integrity compared with garbage like Breitbart.
Well here are the right leaning publications sucking up to a genocidal communist regime becaue it suits its anti-Trump agenda:
So basically you are all racist fucks and dare to disagree with me a mexican POC, check your privileges
*Notice these arent regular people, this are "blue-ticks" verified by twitter, people as famous or important as Pewdiepie or Julian Assange dont get one
I wonder why are they pushing that NK narrative in that way. Guess the USA will leave that region to China?
On February 12 2018 00:06 Baalim wrote:
No problem with feminist whatsoever right?
No prolbme, you can just identify as a woman while buying magazines. Gender identification is male propaganda to gain even more privileges .. imagine being a male-female white person, people will be all licking your feet 24/7
On February 12 2018 07:10 VanDerMeyde wrote:
is it even legal to take different prize based on the customers gender alone ?
I guess its just a gimmick..
Of course it's not being enforced, it's just to draw attention.
"In Canada, estimates for the pay equity gap range from eight per cent to as high as 50 per cent, depending on what you’re measuring (we went with 26 per cent for the cover as that Statistics Canada number compares full-time working women with full-time working men, a broad comparison capturing most workers in Canada). Important pay equity cases are being brought forward by women at Canada Post and the Ontario Provincial Police, and this year, the federal government promises to introduce long-awaited pay equity legislation for federally regulated industries.
Of course, setting a two-tiered magazine price for men and women reduces the complexity of gender at a time when society is only beginning to understand and embrace it. (Readers can of course choose to pay whichever cover price they want.) Research into the transgender pay gap is just beginning, but we know the gap is largest for women of colour and Indigenous women. With that in mind, the $1.82 differential in our cover prices this month is being donated to those for whom the pay gap is most extreme."
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 12 2018 11:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't understand why any of this is supposed to be important or significant
I think we're supposed to know a philosophy's worth by looking at its most extreme adherents. It's pretty ironic to respond to one person's silly generalizations and black and white thinking by doing the same thing yourself.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
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.
It's not standard to post sources for every claim on a discussion forum (it would be largely useless and time intensive), but if you're refuting a claim based on data, it's standard to post the source. It's not about smugness, it simply sucks to have to ask and wait to know if your claim has been refuted.
Anyway, you haven't proven me wrong on "the correlation" with this one particular link. You got two things confused. The weak correlation you're talking about from this paper is not the one that you're using to back up your point. It says that they found a (weak) positive correlation between cognitive sophistication and being more biased, not less:
"All four of these correlations (.096, .176, .260, and .119) were statistically significant. Interestingly, however, all four of the correlations were positive in direction—indicating that more cognitively sophisticated participants showed larger bias blind spots. This somewhat surprising finding extended to six of the seven biases individually. Of the 28 possible correlations (seven biases crossed with four measures of cognitive sophistication), 24 were in the positive direction and 17 were statistically significant."
This one "metabias" deals with the tendency to believe that biased thinking is more prevalent in others than in ourselves. The main bias that I was personally thinking about when I made my claim was confirmation bias, which this paper does state is not negatively correlated with cognitive sophistication. However, the paper also states that most of the literature on biases does suggest there is a negative correlation for many specific biases, which is what you're defending. I'll look into this later since it's a long list of papers, but for now I have to assume this is correct, and that I made a mistake by not being specific. The central takeaway in this paper you linked is that some biases are affected by intelligence while others are not at all or worsened, so we have to be specific.
The general line of thinking which I was opposing is that higher IQ = higher rationality = less bias, which is not true. What I'm wondering for these other biases that are negatively correlated is (1) how robust the research is, (2) whether these biases are more socially dangerous than the Myside (confirmation) bias and this blind spot bias and (3) are we to assume higher 'cognitive sophistication' (however they measure that) = necessarily proportionally higher IQ? And then how does that look in relation to genes? Are we able to trace it back to genes? My central claim was that no, there's no evidence for it. But if there are some genes correlated with higher cognitive sophistication, we can't draw any strong nature versus nurture claims from that data if it hasn't been replicated.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
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.
yeah those 20 are the only ones that exist in the world. they're not "basically kids" if they are kids it's because of the complicity of society in accommodating and infantilizing them, bit different than the norm, blue female haircut, mustache, penis, earrings, girl's top, okay
I just read a story today some 19 year old had a girl over and she took a bunch of drugs and while she was ODing he took the opportunity to cum in her and share pics, although maybe she didn't have a heartbeat by the time he finished, headline was "Man rapes," not "Child rapes"
can serve in the military, can vote, can serve on a jury, pay taxes, can be kicked out and disowned by parents for being a freak like this, these are the final and maybe MOST important formative years for someone before the brain settles down around 25, you do not want it wasted going down this road if you can help it, you going "whatever" is the same nihilism you always offer due to not standing for anything
yes professors of critical transgender theory have something to do with this, notice the same people are sexually confused and warped that have deep problems with western civilization
ever hear of the SLA?
This political symbiosis DeFreeze describes means the unity of all left-wing struggles, feminist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and others. DeFreeze wanted all races, genders, and ages to fight together in a left-wing united front, and to live together peacefully.
On February 11 2018 16:25 Loco wrote:
"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.
it's not philosophy, it's politics, but philosophy is your hammer so you can't get it and are going in circles, this isn't about debating the minutiae of esoteric nonsense
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.
>santafairy you're biased
>everyone's biased santafairy
no shit
oh yeah these guys must be right they have more upboats thanks
santafairy is really pressing me for this experts thing I mentioned in passing, I better search my favorite reddits and post whatever comes up
>plot
>conspiracy
it's like talking to a wall, we should install you next to mexico
surprisingly some of these people are astute enough to realize it's not something that's caught on because it's an elaborate 90 year old CONSPIRACY THEORY and PLOT orchestrated by dead guys but because people use it as a vague catch-all to criticize related issues. conspiracies are the illuminati, cultural marxism is an observation and criticism
if you want to go actually this one dead author actually wrote something different it might be fruitful but the issue is that's your excuse to reject the phenomenon to begin with
so we can see people saying men are rapists and innocent men who get accused of rape can benefit from it and we see apple fire a black woman because she said she valued diversity of ideas and replace her with a nice progressive white woman and so on, and do you want to acknowledge and figure out the history of that and where it's come from and shine some light by sharing your expertise?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
I didn't post my "favorite" subreddits. I'm not cherry-picking subreddits, these are the only subreddits where historians and philosophers regularly answer questions. Beside that, you won't find more reliable subreddits with a large group of experts discussing these topics critically, go ahead and try to prove me wrong. This is just you again evading criticism you know you don't have the ability to counter-argue. You banalize everything you don't agree with and point at things in isolation and hope that no one will link things together to paint a coherent picture.
You don't understand that in order to criticize "related issues" you'd have to know enough about both relational sides. To start off, you'd have to be reasonably well-read on (1) critical theory (2) post-modernism and (3) Marxism. This is not the case. You're making huge leaps and bad inferences and it's not one bit worth it for me to argue over them with you. It's just sad. You can't even make up your mind on what CM actually is. On one hand you link me to Breitbart's explanation of it which is meant to be authoritative and where he stresses the importance of the politico-philosophical polemics of the critical theorists, but on the other you say it has nothing to do with those philosophers, it's just this vague term that somehow has meaning and helps us make sense of a situation where people are more and more abandoning traditional values and pre-modern aesthetic ideals. Or something. It's completely incoherent.
do you want to acknowledge and figure out the history of that and where it's come from and shine some light by sharing your expertise?
I've never claimed to be an expert and I don't need to have access to an entire causal chain in order to be able to call bullshit on one particular narrative/causal chain that makes no sense. I can acknowledge that there are ideological and behavioral problems on the left and this is what I expect to see in an increasingly complex and chaotic world that is driven by profit. I've said before that I believe that the main problem is paradigmatic -- people on both sides are driven by black and white thinking and unexamined presuppositions. Our thinking is plagued by a desperate need for certainty which induces us into believing in illusions and making dangerous errors, which can be traced back to Descartes. One such error which I refuse to make is to reduce those issues to have sprung from one boogeyman or another and propose that there is a clear solution to it and that people who can't see it are just stupid.
Edit: New video I just came across on CM, pretty good:
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
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.
yeah those 20 are the only ones that exist in the world. they're not "basically kids" if they are kids it's because of the complicity of society in accommodating and infantilizing them, bit different than the norm, blue female haircut, mustache, penis, earrings, girl's top, okay
I just read a story today some 19 year old had a girl over and she took a bunch of drugs and while she was ODing he took the opportunity to cum in her and share pics, although maybe she didn't have a heartbeat by the time he finished, headline was "Man rapes," not "Child rapes"
can serve in the military, can vote, can serve on a jury, pay taxes, can be kicked out and disowned by parents for being a freak like this, these are the final and maybe MOST important formative years for someone before the brain settles down around 25, you do not want it wasted going down this road if you can help it, you going "whatever" is the same nihilism you always offer due to not standing for anything
yes professors of critical transgender theory have something to do with this, notice the same people are sexually confused and warped that have deep problems with western civilization
ever hear of the SLA?
This political symbiosis DeFreeze describes means the unity of all left-wing struggles, feminist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and others. DeFreeze wanted all races, genders, and ages to fight together in a left-wing united front, and to live together peacefully.
On February 11 2018 16:25 Loco wrote:
"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.
it's not philosophy, it's politics, but philosophy is your hammer so you can't get it and are going in circles, this isn't about debating the minutiae of esoteric nonsense
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.
>santafairy you're biased
>everyone's biased santafairy
no shit
oh yeah these guys must be right they have more upboats thanks
santafairy is really pressing me for this experts thing I mentioned in passing, I better search my favorite reddits and post whatever comes up
>plot
>conspiracy
it's like talking to a wall, we should install you next to mexico
surprisingly some of these people are astute enough to realize it's not something that's caught on because it's an elaborate 90 year old CONSPIRACY THEORY and PLOT orchestrated by dead guys but because people use it as a vague catch-all to criticize related issues. conspiracies are the illuminati, cultural marxism is an observation and criticism
if you want to go actually this one dead author actually wrote something different it might be fruitful but the issue is that's your excuse to reject the phenomenon to begin with
so we can see people saying men are rapists and innocent men who get accused of rape can benefit from it and we see apple fire a black woman because she said she valued diversity of ideas and replace her with a nice progressive white woman and so on, and do you want to acknowledge and figure out the history of that and where it's come from and shine some light by sharing your expertise?
The postmodern boogey man similar to the lesbians at Brown. What about the frat boys at Duke or Vanderbilt? That is a much scarier proposition. A guy like Bill Frist or those lacrosse players that raped women. Not some 20 year old who colors her hair blue, doesn't shave her armpits and reads Foucault.
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Feb 13 2018 00:36. Posts 5296
post modernism is harmful in that it teaches people nonsense when those people could be learning science. You don't want to teach people nonsense at a university. everyone here would agree that teaching astrology is harmful because it is holding people back from science. The same applies to postmodernism. And i am talking about the extreme elements of postmodernism like slavoj zizek, lacan, derrida, ect. I dont agree with the rantings and ravings from the right wing, that is meant to be 'criticism', of post modernism, but the more reasonable criticisms of postmodernism like that from dawkins, chomsky, bricmont, ect. It's not a huge deal because post modernism is dying out anyway, rationality is prevailing.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
What? We are entering into a post-modern world if we haven't already. Not that I am an expert but from what I have read so far a lot of the post-modern thought is exactly what we need. Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard is far from nonsense. We are entering into a post-modern world if we haven't already which means we are entering into a more chaotic world. The order freaks are doing everything they can to cling to some sense of order. It won't work. We must embrace the chaos and become comfortable in the chaos. How better to do that than study thinkers who think about just that?
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Feb 13 2018 02:32. Posts 5296
i don't know what you mean by we are entering a 'post modern world'. what does that mean? enlightenment ideals are what we need, the quest for truth and rationality, and moral enlightenment too. That's what is needed to live in a world built on peace and justice rather than war and inequality, and environmental degradation, which is what we have. It is in fact, what the world has always needed for any real progress.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
United States. Feb 12 2018 21:47. Posts 8539
