Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by anticausal
There seems to be some confusion about this.
https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/sta...98503429066888
IPB
✓ Member
For the audience, that evil man should brutally suffer an eternity in Hell. Please don’t ask me why as if it isn’t obvious, the question is why is he anyone’s hero?
Member
There seems to be some confusion about this.
https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/sta...98503429066888
IPB
Member
Russians Who Paid Tribute to Alexei Navalny Are Hit With Military Summons (thedailybeast.com)
Russian woman jailed under anti-extremism law for wearing rainbow earrings — Meduza
Weird how they're drafting and arresting people for paying tribute to a guy who totally died of natural causes.
Didn't ya'll march on the capital over perceived interference with your democratic process? How do you square that with your love for a guy who imprisons and murders his political rivals?
Likewise, the idea of a country like Australia banning NAZI symbols is an unacceptable attack on free speech. Vs: the guy banning rainbows. They weren't even the LGBT colours; literally just a rainbow. Pink floyd shirt? Straight to jail! See a rainbow in the sky? You better believe your tranny ass is going out a window!
Member
No one, not one single person who's been affected by the clot shot says boo...
https://kuklaskorner.com/kuklas-korn...y-health-issue
Member
For those of you who can't stand listening to another hackneyed word coming from the mouth of Jon Leibowitz, he said:
This is not the Babylon Bee; Commi Jon actually thought it was a witty and informative joke.The reason we can't have a subway system as nice as the one in Moscow is "the literal price of freedom"
I couldn't tell if Dan Carlin is pro-holocaust, anti-holocaust or somewhere inbetween.
Stopped listening after hearing a 3 minute prologue of prevarication, hand-wringing and disclaimers from a man who calls his brand Hardcore History
TMPHBITEU
Nauseating. A nation of slaves.
Member
At a lower level, I see in this the same reductionist attitude that is also at play, for example, to promote artificial 'meat' (a misnomer that should be avoided, but for the sake of brevity I am going to use it). It's basically the belief that you can reduce anything to the sum of its parts, and nothing more.
Mother's milk has a given amount of X, Y and Z? Them if you can put together a concoction that contains X, Y and Z in the same amounts, it's like mother's milk. Ditto for the proportion of fat, proteins and other connective tissue that is present in real meat and in the artificial stuff that is promoted as a replacement for it.
To move into a domain very familiar to members of this place, it's the same belief of people who think that the effect of training you legs, back erectors and shoulders separately in the right amounts is identical to the effect of well executed squat. It isn't, because anything that is not mechanical, i.e. alive, is always more than the simple sum of its constituent parts. To believe so is to want to reduce living beings to mechanical ones; you could call it a process of de-humanisation, when applied to people.
At a higher level, I can't help but noticing this growing fury that some part of society exercise towards any tradition, any reference point, any accepted and self-evident truth. It's a fury whose only goal seems to destroy any reality, to be replaced with another one, entirely made up. I think you could almost say this is Satanic work, with a capital 'S'.
IPB
Member
Free to do whatever you want. The accounts read on the show are harrowing. Are they true? Not sure, but I'd lean towards yes, the stories read are true. The last ~45 minutes are with an historian who's specialty area is this subject. Feel free to listen, and refute what is said.
Member
Another amazing find / post by the bad cat. You should go read the whole thing but here is the meat:
mathiness instills confidence - by el gato malo
Explains why so may of my former Lib Art friends would retort my fact based assessments on covid with
they were asked to gauge study abstracts and rate their assessment of their quality on a scale of 0-100. it used the same two abstracts for all participants, one on food sharing practices among foragers and another on the consequences of incarceration.
here’s the fun bit:
and adding “mathiness” to an abstract caused people to rate it more highly in inverse proportion to how much they knew about math and models.
for humanities, social sciences the variance was large and stat sig (p<0.01) and for other (including education) it was twice as big and also stat sig (p<0.01). that’s a helluva p value for an N this small. this seems to be a VERY pronounced effect and it gets worse the less expert in math you are.
i’d wager this effect gets even worse amongst liberal arts majors without advanced degrees… (this was not studied here)
the science crowd actually trusted “mathiness” perhaps a bit less than a study without it (not stat sig). but humanities loved it and educators etc really ate it up.
boy, that sure explains a lot about covid, covid models, and who went nuts trusting what, doesn’t it?
it also likely explains a great deal about why so many humanities majors and educators are convinced by the mathiness of global warming models and why far fewer who actually work in the hard sciences (apart from those whose grants depend upon it) are.
the paper had a wonderful quote on this:
“Within the field of pure mathematics, academic writing is expected to be completely transparent to anyone knowledgeable about the mathematical concepts involved. A typical reviewer of a pure mathematics paper will not tolerate a sentence or paragraph for which the meaning is obscure. The same cannot be said about some other academic disciplines.”
it’s small wonder they respond to math they cannot read. half of social sciences these days seems to consist of deliberately impenetrable jargon to occlude and obscure meaning (if, indeed, there is any meaning at all) so it seems to be seen as some sort of feature rather than a bug. but “oh, that’s unparsable and/or incomprehensible to me; it must be profound” is a truly dangerous basis for intellectual belief.
"bUt YoUr JuSt An EnGiNeEr NoT aN eXpErT"
Member
It's always interesting to see what kindles the most passionate hatred from you. It seems that those who are willing to follow superior argument over Clown World narrative at the risk of career, social respectability, freedom, and even life and limb, are at the innermost circle of Barry's Inferno. Even the complete crushing of such a heretic in this life isn't enough for you. From your inert, lifeless philosophy you must conjure a capital-H Hell so he can suffer even more. If there is something akin to "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" in Barry's religion, I think we've found it.
Never an argument, never making an actual point; just outbursts of unbridled rage. It's like tuning in to an episode of The View.
And this is the danger of trying to challenge superior arguments. It's much more effective to just stick with spitting and cursing, while taking comfort in the fact that most people will never bother looking behind the curtain.Yet despite such massive financial and human resources, they apparently came up almost entirely empty, at least if Lipstadt’s triumphalist 2005 book History on Trial may be credited. Across four decades of research and writing, which had produced numerous controversial historical claims of the most astonishing nature, they only managed to find a couple of dozen rather minor alleged errors of fact or interpretation, most of these ambiguous or disputed. And the worst they discovered after reading every page of the many linear meters of Irving’s personal diaries was that he had once composed a short “racially insensitive” ditty for his infant daughter, a trivial item which they naturally then trumpeted as proof that he was a “racist.” Thus, they seemingly admitted that Irving’s enormous corpus of historical texts was perhaps 99.9% accurate.
I think this silence of “the dog that didn’t bark” echoes with thunderclap volume. I’m not aware of any other academic scholar in the entire history of the world who has had all his decades of lifetime work subjected to such painstakingly exhaustive hostile scrutiny. And since Irving apparently passed that test with such flying colors, I think we can regard almost every astonishing claim in all of his books—as recapitulated in his videos—as absolutely accurate.
Posting Permissions
