b1rd you're going to hell
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
What self-respecting SJW could call xerself a SJW if xer didn't constantly rant about sexism and the patriarchy? It's a part of the definition of the label.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I love how you start this post by countering my deliberately-charitable interpretation of your words with an even more batshit insane claim, lol. "Not some people with social justice leanings, but ALL of them"- you're hilarious!B1rd wrote:
Again, you do a lot of reading in to things that aren't there. I never used the word "some", I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society. And I didn't say sexism doesn't happen, I implied that what you call sexism is often just a triviality or justifiable behaviour, and you certainly seem to be exaggerating its relevance to Uber, whose problems certainly seems to be the typical regulatory and "worker's rights" complaints.
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in society. But such things are ludicrous when you look at things impartialy. Women benefit inordinately more from wealth redistribution schemes, they benefit from progressive actions schemes, they get off much lighter for identical crimes as men, they disproportionately win family court cases and have higher attendance at universities and achieve higher grades than men, and they commit suicide around 4 times less often. And then, even though things like feminism and affirmative action have wide-spread institutional support, people attack Jordan Peterson having the temerity of being a role model for young men and standing up for their interests. No wonder!
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/1579 ... huffington
Having read personal accounts of women who have quit Uber I think it's a fair judgement to call their workplace culture sexist.The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in societyJust because critique of patriarchy exists that doesn't mean "sexism" automatically means that in all contexts. Aren't you someone who complains about sexism against men?
Also, you're very transparently taking this opportunity to rattle off a bunch of MRA propaganda/talking points when the conversation wasn't even about that. I said Uber had a sexist workplace and now you're veering off-topic to talk about overall suicide rates, like, what are you smoking..?
As for Jordan Peterson I think you're deliberately oversimplifying people's criticism. I know lots of people make fun of his "clean your room" advice, but it's undeniably good advice. Critique is more often given towards the fact that he uses these techniques to build an audience of lonely/despondent young men and then provides them a gateway into alt-right ideology with his grandiose anti-postmodernism ranting and such.
Sexist jokes in the workplace? Oh, the humanity! No wonder men don't want women in the workplace if they are writing up exposés every time someone makes a joke (and it's only jokes that are offensive in some way that are truly funny). Everyone has to experience unpleasant bosses, unpleasant coworkers, unpleasant workplace environments, and so on. What's worse than this "culture of sexism" is the culture of the the victim mentality and the culture of infantilisation and treating adults as if they are emotionally-fragile children. Adults shouldn't need the state to intervene to sort out problems like workplace bullies.
And sexism against men? Does such a thing really exist? Indeed, even most dictionaries seem to state that sexism is typically against women. but the word sexism is basically feminist jargon, so it's not like I'd ever actually use the word myself. I'm not against traditional gender roles, since their utility is rooted in biology, and I'm not against employers choosing whatever arbitrary grounds for employment that they want, as it's their money they're giving away, and I believe in freedom of association, and people should have the right to associate with whatever type, race or sex of people they choose to.
Things like toleration vs not tolerating things is inherently a balancing act; there are certain behaviors and people you shouldn't tolerate, and there are those you should, and you need to discern these things apart. For example, obviously if you're an employer you should discriminate against drug addicts. But as for women and non-whites, it depends. Some jobs may be inherently unsuitable for women, take combat roles in the army as I've mentioned in previous stories, and in that circumstance discriminating against men is unjust. If you had to choose between a white man and a black man given equal credentials and a finite amount of information, it'd be more prudent going with the white man since in most locations whites are less prone to criminality and therefore presumably more likely to be a better employee. Or take discrimination purely on the basis of race, maybe you inherently prefer being around people of your own race so actively discriminate so you don't have to associate with people of other races, that's a valid reason and not a faulty assumption, and although the other party would no doubt be upset, withholding services is within your rights.
Anyway, that's my perceptive is "discrimination", "sexism", "racism" and the like. It's nuanced and you can't oversimplify certain types of behaviours as always good or always bad. Also note that technically discrimination is defined as something that is always unjust and wrong, however I just define it as exclusion of a certain group, however just those reasons might be.
As for Jordan Peterson, saying he's some gateway drug to some extreme right-wing view is silly. Firstly, he's fundamentally an anti-totalitarian and that's quite a pervasive point in his works. He accurately points out the arrogance of ideologues, thinking they know everything about the world, which one would need to determine a few select things as the cause of all troubles, be it the Jews or Capitalism or the patriarchy. If anything he's far more likely to deradicalise young men already radicalised by one ideology to another, and his message boils down to "sort yourself out", "get a job, work to improve your life and the lives of those around you", which is as good advice you can give. His advice doesn't stem from a political inclination, but rather from psychology, philosophy and life experience, and he was never aiming at the male demographic (and indeed he has plenty of advice for women), it just so happened that men are the ones who need the advice at this point in time. I'd reference his book 12 Rules for Life which I bought and has a lot of interesting points and condenses a lot of his lectures, however I'm not at home at the moment. The criticism of Jordan Peterson are often nothing more than people upset because his conclusions go against their ideology and thus attack him by whatever means possible, when any sane person can tell that he is largely a beneficial influence whatever things they may be able to nitpick about him.
And concerning things like Post-modernism and cultural Marxism, they are real things and not some "right-wing conspiracy". Post-modernism, generally summarised as radical subjectivism, and the claim that there is no objective truth, and that truth is merely used as a means of power and control, is a real thing. And it's basically the philosophical backing behind many beliefs of progressives, such as the patriarchy, behind the ideals of radical equality and tolerance in which no culture, even radical Muslim fundamentalist cultures, are judged to be inferior or undesirable. And of course remember the term "racism = power + prejudice"? It's basically straight out of the post-modernist handbook. Cultural marxism is simply the modern culture of Marxism brought over from the 19th and 20th century, with many similarities minus the Bolshevism, which was finally and utterly discredited, despite the best efforts for Western Leftist intellectuals for decades to maintain its credibility. Just read some classic literature like Crime and Punishment which Peterson goes on about a lot, it was published in 1866 yet the socialist characters within it are remarkably similar to modern-day SJW. Of course it's hard to prove where the ideas originated, but the label of cultural Marxist with many ideas traditionally associated with Marxism is as good as any.
Are you okay, or are you just not good at formulating arguments? It's weird to use the words "assume" and "assumption" six times in one sentence. But as for the claim, it was never implied that 100% of Muslims were violent, but the fact that Muslims are in general much more violent and oppressive towards women than people in Western countries should be self-evident and is backed by statistics. The claim that women unconsciously wish for brutal male domination is harder to back up, but there have been studies for example that women often have rape fantasies and a lot of women orgasm during rape, so it's plausible enough. Certainly I've heard accounts of the former point by supposed women.Momi wrote:
his implication seems to be that the "wish for brutal male domination" comes from some assumed characteristic of "abusing women", assumed to be possessed by "muslims" and assumed to have a prevalence of 100%. the assumption makes no sense sadly, it's statistically wrong. if that is not the assumption and his assumption is closer to reality, then the "wish for brutal male domination" would be incompatibile with it.B1rd wrote:
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, but I think that calling someone batshit insane constitutes an attack. Furthermore, just look at the type of people who posted the Tweet.
example - i support the rights of black people not because of my wish for brutal crime, but because my brain is big enough to filter statistics, percentages, and understand words with more than 8 letters. sorry for an idiotic example.
Even groups where negative tendencies are directly implied and very significant, like "people who have a desire to kill someone" (isn't that very simple?) are simplifiable as a "higher percentage number on a chart" and have not done anything yet. Do you think thought crimes are a good idea? I'm not sure if you do but a tendency of a group is even weaker than a thought crime because not even a thought is guaranteed.
this can apply to any group, who knows - maybe gingers have a higher tendency of school shootings... i bet there are some interesting statistics and tendencies out there.as someone with social justice leanings, my observations lead me to think that sexism is experienced in more or less equal intensity by both genders. but it also presents itself in different ways for each, so if one only looks into certain types/sources of sexism, they might weirdly misinterpret it as [insert gender] experiencing ALL sexism more than the other.B1rd wrote:
I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society.
imagine if MRAs and feminists united into one group, it would be pretty cool i promise
Making judgement about demographics based on statistics though is definitely not the same as prosecuting someone for a thought crime. Of course statistics don't give you the right to prosecute someone who hasn't committed a crime, but you can of course choose whom to associate with based on that information. And people do it all the time. For example, you would be more likely to pick up a hitchhiker dressed in a suit and tie rather than a scraggly homeless man, or walk through a well-manicured upper-class suburb that a slum, and such decisions can basically be summed up as making judgement about statistics of which group of people are more likely to be a threat to you or commit some undesirable behaviour.
And it's a good observation to note that pretty much all demographics have their own problems, thus it's not good to focus on the problems of one group to the exclusion of all others, such as feminists making out women to always be the victims and men to be the aggressors. Such antagonism can only lead to mutual hostility and not any actual problem-solving. I remember hearing on a radio once going one about how some issue or another was still a "gendered issue" when the percentage of victims was something like 55% women.
Anyway, that's all for tonight.
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.B1rd wrote:
Was it intentional that your post was is hard to interpret. Don't blame English because of your failure to use it properly. Also, maths sucks.abraker wrote:
Why use languages like English when you start to warp the meaning of arguments by via vagueness of interpretation.
Just state everything in a mathematical context. I trust math. It is never wrong and only has one possible interpretation.
E m i
such a thing was never implied, but it's the only way in which the claim can make sense, as the only way in which a less ulterior motive can't exist... if it was implied and was true, then the claim would totally make sense i guess. That's what I meant. I'm actually giving him the benefit of the doubt with that temporary assumption.B1rd wrote:
Are you okay, or are you just not good at formulating arguments? It's weird to use the words "assume" and "assumption" six times in one sentence. But as for the claim, it was never implied that 100% of Muslims were violent, but the fact that Muslims are in general much more violent and oppressive towards women than people in Western countries should be self-evident and is backed by statistics. The claim that women unconsciously wish for brutal male domination is harder to back up, but there have been studies for example that women often have rape fantasies and a lot of women orgasm during rape, so it's plausible enough. Certainly I've heard accounts of the former point by supposed women.
Also sorry but I'm not into arguments in any sort of meaningful way, I treat related stuff only as entertainment. It's all about what information people have, people mostly have valid thinking. As an example, I don't really think Peterson is unable to comprehend percentages and tendencies. I just think he never even STARTED thinking about it in that way. Which makes his assumptions mostly make sense within his own thinking.
Example:
"Are there 2 genders or infinite genders ???"
Me: There are 2 biological sexes(ha got you) and probably an infinite amount of possible gender-related feelings/thoughts. So now you can stop arguing over a word, because regardless of what properties the word has, reality will stay the same.
I am mostly arguing with:
1. Everyone
2. Nobody
3. Both
So why wouldn't I be bad at formulating arguments?
But all of that stuff is unharmful and indirect. I actually hope everyone does that stuff to protect themselves from tendencies while not also harming anyone...B1rd wrote:
Making judgement about demographics based on statistics though is definitely not the same as prosecuting someone for a thought crime. Of course statistics don't give you the right to prosecute someone who hasn't committed a crime, but you can of course choose whom to associate with based on that information. And people do it all the time. For example, you would be more likely to pick up a hitchhiker dressed in a suit and tie rather than a scraggly homeless man, or walk through a well-manicured upper-class suburb that a slum, and such decisions can basically be summed up as making judgement about statistics of which group of people are more likely to be a threat to you or commit some undesirable behaviour.
It's different from stuff like disallowing certain groups from entering a country, and bla bla bla. That does affect them negatively and directly
What would I knowB1rd wrote:
And it's a good observation to note that pretty much all demographics have their own problems, thus it's not good to focus on the problems of one group to the exclusion of all others, such as feminists making out women to always be the victims and men to be the aggressors. Such antagonism can only lead to mutual hostility and not any actual problem-solving. I remember hearing on a radio once going one about how some issue or another was still a "gendered issue" when the percentage of victims was something like 55% women.
resume ples(?) @-@
I have no idea what you're on about. If you fail to understand what the person said, it can ONLY be one of two things: either you can't read properly and are severely lacking in the knowledge of that specific language, or the person who wrote it lacks a deeper understanding of said language/doesn't know how to express themselves properly and concisely.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
If someone makes an intentionally vague statement in an argument, you call them out for that, because that's not how debates and discussions work. It's called being a mongrel, and if they refuse to throw vague statements at you, you simply cease talking to them, as there's nothing to discuss with such people.
This wouldn't fix anything, communication extends beyond the literal meaning of words, and if the other party is being intellectually dishonest it doesn't matter how precise your speech, they will find a way to strawman you. E.G Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman debate. It's the fault of the person, not the fault of English.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
The video you provided is frustrating, but interesting. From what I have gathered, in addition to the literal meaning, there is contextual information to the literal meaning, information on what an idea suggests for entities, past, future, and present. This contextual information seems to change on a whim while literal meaning remains the same.B1rd wrote:
This wouldn't fix anything, communication extends beyond the literal meaning of words, and if the other party is being intellectually dishonest it doesn't matter how precise your speech, they will find a way to strawman you. E.G Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman debate. It's the fault of the person, not the fault of English.abraker wrote:
I blame English because it can be used by others improperly. You can use it properly, but others can use it improperly for their cause. There needs to be a language in which it is impossible to do that and impossible to make a post that is hard to interpret.
To simply put it, "I will go outside" can supposedly be interpreted literally, but there is a wealth of unknown contextual information to it: outside the room? Outside the house? Outside when? Tomorrow? Etc... and the lack of such information can be taken advantage of as freedom to formulate arguments that suits your needs.
That's true.
I used to agree with this, but I've seen so many problems and arguments happen as a direct result of linguistic misunderstandings that I can't help but feel like the language itself is part of the problem. English has a LOT of words and ways of conveying ideas that rely too heavily on context and previously agreed-upon definitions. Abraker just pointed this out too.Aurani wrote:
I have no idea what you're on about. If you fail to understand what the person said, it can ONLY be one of two things: either you can't read properly and are severely lacking in the knowledge of that specific language, or the person who wrote it lacks a deeper understanding of said language/doesn't know how to express themselves properly and concisely.
I think most arguments are caused by misunderstandings, and part of those misunderstandings are attributable to inherent flaws within English. It becomes especially apparent when talking to someone who isn't a native speaker.
So you argue that you're someone (or know someone) who has fundamentally learnt the entire English language, down to the last detail and who can without fail utilize it to its fullest, and that the language is to blame for the misunderstandings? That's....... lunacy.
Most of the misunderstandings stem from improper use of the language, and that's the fault of none other than the user.
Most of the misunderstandings stem from improper use of the language, and that's the fault of none other than the user.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯Aurani wrote:
So you argue that you're someone (or know someone) who has fundamentally learnt the entire English language, down to the last detail and who can without fail utilize it to its fullest, and that the language is to blame for the misunderstandings? That's....... lunacy.
What can I say, people misinterpret very easily. You see it online with people HARDCORE misreading even scientific journals. I don't think clarity is a strong point of the English language at all, especially in contrast with something like German.
That's still a problem with the people - not the language. People misreading it due to their own lack of a deeper understanding of the language = people's problem.
As for German having more "clarity" than English - it has nothing to do with the overall functionality of the language. It's the same as saying it's impossible to cut bread with a dull knife and pointing out that a sharp knife is the only way to go. Yeah, a sharp knife may do it with better efficiency, but a dull knife will do the job nonetheless. It's your fault if you're so clumsy with it as to not cut the bread and instead cut yourself.
As for German having more "clarity" than English - it has nothing to do with the overall functionality of the language. It's the same as saying it's impossible to cut bread with a dull knife and pointing out that a sharp knife is the only way to go. Yeah, a sharp knife may do it with better efficiency, but a dull knife will do the job nonetheless. It's your fault if you're so clumsy with it as to not cut the bread and instead cut yourself.
Then in that case, we disagree on the meaning of "overall functionality", because I think if a language is more clear (in your analogy, a sharp knife as opposed to a dull one) then it IS more functional/useful, particularly for debates and arguments.
See how disagreements tend to come purely from people interpreting words differently? ;^)
See how disagreements tend to come purely from people interpreting words differently? ;^)
I hate it when people blame the system instead of the person abusing the system. Yeah, the system has flaws, but only an asshole would abuse those flaws. Not specifically talking about your discussion right now, it's just something that popped into my head after reading it.
I don't really believe German is much different from English in terms of clarity. I know it's kind of a meme at this point that Germans have a word for everything, but really all it does is make sentences shorter. The language might be more efficient in that sense but I don't think there is any German phrase that couldn't be directly translated into English while still maintaining the same level of precision.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What can I say, people misinterpret very easily. You see it online with people HARDCORE misreading even scientific journals. I don't think clarity is a strong point of the English language at all, especially in contrast with something like German.
I'm with Aurani on this one, really in 99% of the cases it comes down to how well the person can use the language. I doubt there's a lot of people that push the boundaries of the English language.
silmarilen wrote:
I hate it when people blame the system
silmarilen wrote:
the system has flaws
When people "blame the system", they're generally talking ABOUT those flaws that are openly acknowledged to exist in the first place. No need to get defensive and reject analysis into those flaws/how they can be improved, you know?
BrokenArrow wrote:
I don't really believe German is much different from English in terms of clarity. I know it's kind of a meme at this point that Germans have a word for everything, but really all it does is make sentences shorter. The language might be more efficient in that sense but I don't think there is any German phrase that couldn't be directly translated into English while still maintaining the same level of precision.
I'm with Aurani on this one, really in 99% of the cases it comes down to how well the person can use the language. I doubt there's a lot of people that push the boundaries of the English language.
I think it's a bit better than English. All languages, as far as I'm aware, still have serious clarity issues; it's just the nature of languages in general, at least the ones I've seen. I think it'd be nice to have a language someday that fixes that flaw though.
No, when people "blame the system" they are generally saying that the people abusing it shouldn't be blamed.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
silmarilen wrote:
I hate it when people blame the systemsilmarilen wrote:
the system has flaws
When people "blame the system", they're generally talking ABOUT those flaws that are openly acknowledged to exist in the first place. No need to get defensive and reject analysis into those flaws/how they can be improved, you know?
It's one thing to point out the flaws in a system, it's another thing to pardon the people abusing those flaws because "hey, the system is flawed anyway right? can't blame the people for abusing it."
Just because you can exploit a system does not mean you are not at fault for abusing that exploit. Why do you think exploiting is a bannable offense in so many games?
Trying to fix the flaws is a whole other thing that i didn't even mention. You can try to fix the system without pardoning the abusers.
silmarilen wrote:
No, when people "blame the system" they are generally saying that the people abusing it shouldn't be blamed.
It's one thing to point out the flaws in a system, it's another thing to pardon the people abusing those flaws because "hey, the system is flawed anyway right? can't blame the people for abusing it."
Just because you can exploit a system does not mean you are not at fault for abusing that exploit. Why do you think exploiting is a bannable offense in so many games?
Oh, I see. Yeah I think it's okay to criticise people who go out of their way to exploit systems just as much as it's okay to criticise systems themselves. I'm not really sure what specific conversations you're thinking about here though
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
E m i
that's because you're coolDJ Enetro wrote:
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
cooler than me and stuff
DJ Enetro wrote:
I see absolutely no reason why people should shun or be annoyed by anyone socially inept, especially if that person wants to socialize.
Doing so is just like discrimination - you don't want to learn about that person's past or personality, and to be fair, it places you on a higher level than other people, which I hate.
Socially inept people can be annoying because you need to put a lot of energy into them just to have a normal interaction. They need to be "carried", essentially.
The only big long lasting three here
Forums are a place for discussions, but that does not mean “create only topics that the majority of people like to talk about”.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
Then again, posting spam is not okay either, where the not-extremes are subjective.
I think we are overdue for an Enertro thread
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
I refuse to believe the accumulation of Enetro posts thus far ease the amount of unrest that has built up
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language.
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
As a socially inept person myself I agree with this sentiment and don't expect anyone to expend energy to interact with me (and I wouldn't want pity like that anyway). Though I would add that sometimes I do have something important to say so it would be nice if certain loud-mouthed people could learn to shut up and let someone speak without interrupting for just a few seconds.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Socially inept people can be annoying because you need to put a lot of energy into them just to have a normal interaction. They need to be "carried", essentially.
Shohei Ohtani
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
Don't know 'how a language should function' is such a partisan issue now. Or is it just B1rd applying political rhetoric to irrelevant topics again?
CDFA wrote:
As far as languages go, there needs to be a balance struck between things being clearly ordered and the need for things to be loose and flexible. An as Jordan Peterson pointed out, the personality traits of order vs flexibility seems to be something that differentiate "Liberals" and Conservatives on the political spectrum, the former generally wanting more flexibility and the latter wanting more order. This applies to language as well (and political words are particularly bad on this). Take the word "Libertarian", there's a significant amount of people who thinks this term has so broad a scope it can be used to define people with polar opposite values, and if you try to clearly define the word, they will berate you for not being "inclusive" enough. Which is obviously ridiculous, because if a word is so watered down it can be used to define anything, it defines nothing, and essentially is of no use as a word anymore. Thus you must actively fight against sloppy language use in which words are used to mean things they're not supposed to and thus their meaning expanded, as this sloppy language use is what contributes to the watering down of the language. Because English is the most widely used language, being used all over the world in a lot of different cultures and environments, it's probably been subject to this process of having meanings and definitions watered down and expanded upon more so than languages used by small, culturally homogenous populations, which brings the benefit of having an expanded vocabulary but with the downside of added vagueness. I'd imagine German is precise and functional because that's the character of the German people, but I don't think you can just reproduce that functionality by copying their language, because that functionality essentially stems from the people, and if non-Germans were to use the language they would probably degrade in to something less precise over time.
But in example of Aurani here, it was definitely his fault for misusing the word "functionality".
I was going off on a tangent pointing out how the personality tendencies of different political groups translate into arguments about the definition of some political words, as I gave an example of. But mainly the post was just some reflections on language use, rather than a political point. Though the post was somewhat vague itself, because I'm at a public library so I don't have unlimited time to translate vague and indefinite thoughts in to indefinite words.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
Here's another example of politically driven word usage contributing to vagueness in this article, and it's something I've always spoken against: the usage of the word "they" for individuals. It makes it hard to tell whether it's a person or group being spoken about. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christi ... university
On this subject of English, George Orwell wrote a good essay about English usage http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_a ... age/0.html
In other news, I got a my comment published in a popular national newspaper, which is cool.
pleonasms are a bitch
keep it simple lads
keep it simple lads
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
That's why it's good. It embodies everything bad and goodCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.
Dawnsday wrote:
That's why it's good. It embodies everything badCanadian Baka wrote:
This is basically OT, but in one enourmous thread.and good
Why do people name themselves Dick even though they know it's penis
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society. Dick has a nice ring to it, and people really went out of their way to ruin it.B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
Funnily enough, one of the first recorded instance of the pejorative "dick" was used by a guy named Head.
Art I commissioned from Brian has reached top results in Google when you search "Libertarian anime girl".
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Let it not be said I haven't achieved anything in life.
edit: I like how you use your signature to pronounce your nihilism
Comfy Slippers wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Isn't Dick just a nickname for Richard?
I blame our regressive society.
dont compare your third world society to ours
Too real.
mfw I could get a krstni list and domovnica and roll over to Croatia, but it wouldn't change anything. And it's not like another south slavic orgy aka Yugoslavia would fix shit.
btw
we're preventing rabies dudelmao
- based bulgarian
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
johnmedina999 wrote:
lol wrote:
dont compare your third world society to ours
Yeah, all third-world societies are different! Our third-world society is better than theirs, huh lol?
who said you can @me
Don't be racist, John. America is a third-world country too, you know.
Cannot post.
Ideology shall paddle forward to be applied, but ends up backpaddling everything else in the process.
(5 years later) can't believe this thread is still going
ikr
It's even pinned now, so it's not in any danger of dying, either.
It's even pinned now, so it's not in any danger of dying, either.
remember when they deleted the last thread
What is dead may never die
A moving corpse can stop movingDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
What is dead may never die
being unable to move != dead
but a corpse is already dead. For the dead to stop moving is even more dead than the dead they are in
America is third world because of a significant presence of people from the third world.
An interesting (((coincidence))):
So, the (((Left))) imports more diversity, crime and violence skyrockets, and then they blame it on the right to bear arms and use it as an excuse for more government overreach on people's rights. In Australia too, the most pozzed state Victoria is having problems with African gangs terrorizing people's homes. Quite a sad state of affairs.
An interesting (((coincidence))):
So, the (((Left))) imports more diversity, crime and violence skyrockets, and then they blame it on the right to bear arms and use it as an excuse for more government overreach on people's rights. In Australia too, the most pozzed state Victoria is having problems with African gangs terrorizing people's homes. Quite a sad state of affairs.
Okay, okay, I was just commenting on the language of this sentence:
dont compare your third world society to ours
It's pretty close looking at poverty or religiosity or how conservative a state is. The eastern rust belt is just a shithole.
Trying to infer loose correlations like that is silly, especially when you can actually look at research on the criminality of all those groups. Religious people commit less crime, conservatives commit less crime, and blacks commit more crime even within the same socio-economic bracket as Whites.Green Platinum wrote:
It's pretty close looking at poverty or religiosity or how conservative a state is. The eastern rust belt is just a shithole.
Trying to infer causation from loose correlations like that is silly, especially when you can actually look at research on the criminality of all those groups. Religious people commit less crime, conservatives commit less crime, and blacks commit more crime even within the same socio-economic bracket as Whites.Green Platinum wrote:
It's pretty close looking at poverty or religiosity or how conservative a state is. The eastern rust belt is just a shithole.
I can't edit any longer.
Pretty funny for you to say this.B1rd wrote:
Trying to infer loose correlations like that is silly
It goes without saying we're talking about Christians. And don't throw some minor objections and imply that what I'm saying is unfounded. I was talking about all crime, not just violent crime, but if you want to specify homicide: https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpres ... economics/
As for conservatives committing less crime,
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_in_crime
It's self reported so you can't be sure it's accurate, but it's not like you can prove that conservative ideology is the causation of increased crime, so pointing out that Republican states have higher crime rates in meaningless.
As for conservatives committing less crime,
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_in_crime
It's self reported so you can't be sure it's accurate, but it's not like you can prove that conservative ideology is the causation of increased crime, so pointing out that Republican states have higher crime rates in meaningless.
Pretty funny you have nothing to say excepting indirectly implying things.Green Platinum wrote:
Pretty funny for you to say this.B1rd wrote:
Trying to infer loose correlations like that is silly
Well you did clearly miss the point of my post before. Your hatred for the left has left you blind. There is no point.
No, you're just using lame excuses to avoid to confronting anything thing I've said (as editing your post shows). If you're not going to actually address my arguments then you're just wasting my time.
Haha
I love such comparisons that both the left and the right come up with. Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame. Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows. It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
What do you mean? You haven’t done anything, have you?Momi wrote:
I'm personally very sorry for everything that has been happening recently, to all of OT
deepMomi wrote:
I neither know, nor does it matter because I feel bad either way
Oh shit, what's up AqoAqo wrote:
(5 years later) can't believe this thread is still going
How irritating are smug and condescending Europeans who think that they're just culturally and politically enlightened compared to the USA. The US's problems aren't its culture, they're a result of an over centralised and corrupt political system that has progressed over decades and a failed melting pot experiment, both of which Europe are going to experience with the EU and its mass migration policies. We'll see who's laughing then.Aurani wrote:
I love such comparisons that both the left and the right come up with. Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame. Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows. It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
Culture is largely an expression of genes. If anybody supports mass immigration, he should be required that they spend at least a year living in a country where the proposed immigrants make up a majority.
Bahavior is part of culture too, not just appearancesB1rd wrote:
Culture is largely an expression of genes.
B1rd wrote:
Culture is largely an expression of genes.
l m f a o
Imagine being this deluded, hooly shit. Tell me, B1rd, when you were a NEET who was taking government benefits, did your strong white male genes guide you down that path?
lol
Okay that did make me laugh. It's healthy to make such jokes every now and then, Birdman.
All the problems with the citizens of North America stem from them and them only - not their government nor their..... genes.
All the problems with the citizens of North America stem from them and them only - not their government nor their..... genes.
Aurani wrote:
Okay that did make me laugh. It's healthy to make such jokes every now and then, Birdman.
All the problems with the citizens of North America stem from them and them only - not their government nor their..... genes.
I'd disagree but my genes are preventing me from forming an opinion other than the one I currently hold. Oh well, off to vote for the Conservatives; it's in my British blood after all. Except whenever Labour are winning. Genes fluctuate like that, it's quite incredible.
Wait, maybe B1rd thinks that his stubbornness is caused by a fucking genetic limitation instead of his ego lol.
Yeah you're really upsetting precedent, being a young labour voter and all.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Culture is largely an expression of genes.
l m f a o
Imagine being this deluded, hooly shit. Tell me, B1rd, when you were a NEET who was taking government benefits, did your strong white male genes guide you down that path?
So tell me, you were the one previously going on about how determinism was valid. So what are the factors in determine someone's behaviour? One is environment, the other is (fill in blank).
So, if you have two genetically distinct populations and subject them to the same circumstances, what will happen? Will they manifest the exact same culture, or will they manifest different cultures?
Don't tell me you've gone full blank-slate theory.
Here is a study that shows that political beliefs are highly heritable, from a left-wing news source at that https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opin ... liefs.html
B1rd wrote:
Yeah you're really upsetting precedent, being a young labour voter and all.
So tell me, you were the one previously going on about how determinism was valid. So what are the factors in determine someone's behaviour? One is environment, the other is (fill in blank).
So, if you have two genetically distinct populations and subject them to the same circumstances, what will happen? Will they manifest the exact same culture, or will they manifest different cultures?
Don't tell me you've gone full blank-slate theory.
The *same circumstances*? If that's something achievable then yes, I believe that the same culture would manifest, considering how small the genetic variation is between human populations. I don't see how you can reliably create the same circumstances for any two people though, never mind groups large enough to form cultural distinction.
The problem is that blank slate theory can't ethically be tested, and that makes me really sad. Hopefully we can simulate it in the future, or something.
There is extremely small variation between humans and apes, and extremely small genetic variation between humans and all other mammals. I guess the difference between chimps and humans in the same circumstances, their culture would be almost exactly the same! Not just that, there's an extremely small genetic difference between different races of humans and different subspecies of animals (and the genetic differences within races of humans isn't less than between many subspecies of animals), so does that mean that subspecies of animals aren't inherently different?
For all the research you've supposedly done on the subject, you're still extremely ignorant on basic things. There's an entire field of science, quantitative genetics, that is entirely devoted to answering questions related to nature vs nurture, and results consistently show that a significant amount of human behavior is inherited, i.e. genetic. (and if you're a genius, you might be able to work out that if a certain amount of behavior is genetic, that disproves the theory that behaviour is entirely from environmental factors). Did you even click in to the studies that I linked?
And given that a significant potion of human behavior has a genetic basis, i.e. genes interacting with the environment, then it follows that genetically distinct populations will manifest different behaviours, and it's why you can't continue to have White culture if your country isn't majority White. If you take a single individual of one race and insert them in to another group, then likely they will adapt their behaviour to follow that group since the environmental pressure is so strong. But the more people of the different race is a society, the more their genetic tendencies will manifest.
And the fact that the races are genetically distinct can be shown by genetic cluster analysis - if you ask people what their race is, and ask a computer to group those people's genes into clusters based on similarity, then those people's genes will be grouped into the same cluster as others of their self-identified race with an accuracy of 97%.
For all the research you've supposedly done on the subject, you're still extremely ignorant on basic things. There's an entire field of science, quantitative genetics, that is entirely devoted to answering questions related to nature vs nurture, and results consistently show that a significant amount of human behavior is inherited, i.e. genetic. (and if you're a genius, you might be able to work out that if a certain amount of behavior is genetic, that disproves the theory that behaviour is entirely from environmental factors). Did you even click in to the studies that I linked?
And given that a significant potion of human behavior has a genetic basis, i.e. genes interacting with the environment, then it follows that genetically distinct populations will manifest different behaviours, and it's why you can't continue to have White culture if your country isn't majority White. If you take a single individual of one race and insert them in to another group, then likely they will adapt their behaviour to follow that group since the environmental pressure is so strong. But the more people of the different race is a society, the more their genetic tendencies will manifest.
And the fact that the races are genetically distinct can be shown by genetic cluster analysis - if you ask people what their race is, and ask a computer to group those people's genes into clusters based on similarity, then those people's genes will be grouped into the same cluster as others of their self-identified race with an accuracy of 97%.
What is this, why is OT making me laugh again? Stop trying to draw me back to posting! =DDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I'd disagree but my genes are preventing me from forming an opinion other than the one I currently hold. Oh well, off to vote for the Conservatives; it's in my British blood after all. Except whenever Labour are winning. Genes fluctuate like that, it's quite incredible.
Wait, maybe B1rd thinks that his stubbornness is caused by a fucking genetic limitation instead of his ego lol.
Aurani wrote:
I love such comparisons that both the left and the right come up with. Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame. Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows. It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Such mentality is slowly creeping up to Europe, where old traditions and life are being replaced by feces.
Traditionalism > cancer
can I get a source on that?
jokes aside
"Listen, the entirety of the USA is a shithole and everyone there is to blame."
How in the fuck is the entirety of the USA a shithole? Give examples. You could literally replace the USA with any country and that sentence would still be viable.
It's about their national culture being completely fucked up. From the way they raise their children to the way they function as humans - just fucked up.
Okay. Stop. Like B1rd said, you just sound like a stereotypical eurofag who is O B S S E S E D about the Americans they see on multimedia.
you're embarrassing yourself
"Not the whites, not the negros, not the yellows."
oooohh. nice. nice and edgy. you said negro and yellows. edgy. nice
Traditionalism > cancer
Are you implying that traditionalism is dead in the US? Oh no, it is very much alive in non-democrat states. Such states don't tend to be as obnoxious and loud as California or New York, though, hence why you probably think traditionalism is dead.
Traditionalism > cancerWhat even is the cancer in this case?
OT
OT never changes
my humble and uneducated opinion is that US politics needs a full overhaul to either move away completely from the current two-party system, or to somehow clear out both parties of the public and private corruption plaguing them in order to move forward
also, politics should not be a day job but that's not going to be changing at this point, so at the very least there should be transparency in where and how money flows in it. politicians are meant to represent the public, so the public should have a right to see what or who is influencing the politicians
but that's never going to happen so we get to watch the country slowly eat itself up instead
OT never changes
my humble and uneducated opinion is that US politics needs a full overhaul to either move away completely from the current two-party system, or to somehow clear out both parties of the public and private corruption plaguing them in order to move forward
also, politics should not be a day job but that's not going to be changing at this point, so at the very least there should be transparency in where and how money flows in it. politicians are meant to represent the public, so the public should have a right to see what or who is influencing the politicians
but that's never going to happen so we get to watch the country slowly eat itself up instead
I'm sorry I'm triggering you by talking shit about your country, but I'm not going to budge from a firm belief that you can't disprove. Prove me otherwise and we might have a discussion. I mean it's sad enough that every single stereotype about murrica is true, so why even try to defend it?Foxtrot wrote:
can I get a source on that?
jokes aside
How in the fuck is the entirety of the USA a shithole? Give examples. You could literally replace the USA with any country and that sentence would still be viable.
Okay. Stop. Like B1rd said, you just sound like a stereotypical eurofag who is O B S S E S E D about the Americans they see on multimedia.
you're embarrassing yourself
oooohh. nice. nice and edgy. you said negro and yellows. edgy. nice
Are you implying that traditionalism is dead in the US? Oh no, it is very much alive in non-democrat states. Such states don't tend to be as obnoxious and loud as California or New York, though, hence why you probably think traditionalism is dead.
If you want me to be a Eurofag, I'll be a Eurofag. Europe > Murrica
As for the yellows and negros, well, of course you're going to skip the fact that I said white as well. Apparently I can say white, but not yellow or negro. What is this, tumblr? Begone.
As for traditionalism - it depends what you see as such. If you go by the actual definition of it, then no, it's not dead. It's just some twisted and adjusted form of it that turned into what you can call the society you have over there.
I also wanted to add a note about the California and New York example you gave, but the bloody devs made it so you can't edit your posts unless you move onto the new forum, so they can go suck a dick.
Aurani, since this forum won't be existing much longer, I'd like to say that your entire online personality just seems contrived and fake, and I've never sensed any actual sincerity in anything you've actually said.
Well I hope you enjoyed sharing your opinion. I really don't pay much heed to opinions, because if I did I probably wouldn't be where I am today.
As for your opinion - I can only say that that's your issue, not mine. You ought to adjust your senses in that case.
As for your opinion - I can only say that that's your issue, not mine. You ought to adjust your senses in that case.
Please stay on the line, your call is important to us.B1rd wrote:
Aurani, since this forum won't be existing much longer, I'd like to say that your entire online personality just seems contrived and fake, and I've never sensed any actual sincerity in anything you've actually said.
I'm sorry I'm triggering you by talking shit about your country, but I'm not going to budge from a firm belief that you can't disprove.I can't disprove that some parts of the US are shitholes because they are, I never denied that. What you said is that the entirety of the US is a shithole. Wouldn't you be kinda salty too if I said the entirety of your country is a shithole even though you knew it's not true? I'll just drop this link real quick
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/america ... -2017.html
A lot of these states happen to be "tradionalist" states, and the quality of life is high while crime is relatively low. Can you call such states shitholes since they seem to fit your criteria?
I mean it's sad enough that every single stereotype about murrica is true, so why even try to defend it?By that logic, that means the GOOD stereotypes are also true, so why would that be sad? :\
If you want me to be a Eurofag, I'll be a Eurofag. Europe > MurricaDid Muhammed rape you into saying that? Haha!
As for the yellows and negros, well, of course you're going to skip the fact that I said white as well. Apparently I can say white, but not yellow or negro. What is this, tumblr? Begone.Because saying white is as racist as saying yellow and negro, right? Just drop the act. If you wanted to say actual racist slurs, you could have just said cracker. You could have just said "black" as well, but it HAD to be negro. Real classy.
As for traditionalism - it depends what you see as such. If you go by the actual definition of it, then no, it's not dead. It's just some twisted and adjusted form of it that turned into what you can call the society you have over there.Is it possible to be more vague than this? Begone.
First quote: I was making a point that murrica is a *CULTURALLY* shit place - not that it has bad standards of living or that it offers no attractions. Being a melting pot of cultures makes for a weird amalgam that I would rather stay out of. That's my opinion on it, and I'd rather raise my child in almost any country in Europe than over there. I mean it's enough to say that I'd rather let my child grow up in Israel where rockets hit every now and then than constantly wonder if the kid is gonna get mowed down by some mentally ill person with enough of an arsenal to conquer some Middle Eastern country.
As for Muhammed raping me - real classy indeed. Try being more mature if you want to give me shit for responding to your childishness in a childish manner.
As for the negros - I always say negro, even around people of that colour, and none of them have ever said anything against that, because I never meant it in a racist way. The only people to EVER get triggered by such things are those who spend too much time on certain pages on the Internet. I neither meant to be racist by saying negro nor yellow. If I wanted to be racist I would've said chingchong and nigger, or thief - whichever you prefer. If you're trying to be the sjw Internet police, you can sod off. I'm not into that sort of shit.
As for Muhammed raping me - real classy indeed. Try being more mature if you want to give me shit for responding to your childishness in a childish manner.
As for the negros - I always say negro, even around people of that colour, and none of them have ever said anything against that, because I never meant it in a racist way. The only people to EVER get triggered by such things are those who spend too much time on certain pages on the Internet. I neither meant to be racist by saying negro nor yellow. If I wanted to be racist I would've said chingchong and nigger, or thief - whichever you prefer. If you're trying to be the sjw Internet police, you can sod off. I'm not into that sort of shit.
Since when did "negro" become un-PC?
Both America and Europe have culture, albeit different sorts of culture. European countries have thousands of years of history, their own languages, cuisine etc, America has a legacy of fighting against the British Empire and forging a new country. Though I really love classical European food and music, but I'd have to say I prefer to live in America, it's the embodiment of the European classical Liberal tradition, which didn't really succeed in overturning the established powers of Europe, but found fertile ground in America when the founding fathers essentially founded a country on those ideals with the constitution. Though the American establishments have been corrupted a significant deal, I think the original culture of freedom is still fairly alive.
Not that I've been to America of course. Though if you're gonna berate a country for not having culture, then Australia is probably the worst in that regard. We didn't even have a war or anything, just sort of got our independence in an undramatic fashion.
Not that I've been to America of course. Though if you're gonna berate a country for not having culture, then Australia is probably the worst in that regard. We didn't even have a war or anything, just sort of got our independence in an undramatic fashion.