True.
But to be fair, in the overwhelming majority of countries a white policeman approaching a black person using some slur would also not install a fear of death.
The world is not the US. Other places have different issues.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
But to be fair, in the overwhelming majority of countries a white policeman approaching a black person using some slur would also not install a fear of death.
The world is not the US. Other places have different issues.
Okay. But I was talking about the US, where the story I commented on took place.
Satanic Temple opens online abortion clinic named after Samuel Alito’s mother
The “non-theistic religious organisation” has tried to use US religious laws to subvert abortion bans
www.independent.co.uk
Also, holy shit, they sassy af.
Last edited:
I feel like somebody needs to have a talk with them about how branding works.
IIRC, though, they do have or have had some rather awful people in leadership positions, though not more than any other large organisation that doesn't have Satan ion their name, I guess.
You might be thinking of the Church of Satan, or LaVeyan satanism in general. Satanic Temple is unrelated, and afaik does not have a shitty leadership problem or any such controversies, outside of ruffling christian jammies by existing, of course. That said, I only casually know about them, I might be off.
Even then, the Church of Satan doesn't really push the envelope. It's essentially like Objectivism minus the cultishness and po-faced, dogmatic pseudophilosophy.
Quite possibly I am, I'm partially remembering a discussion from another forum some time ago, so I could be way off.
I prefer to look at the data vs just taking someone's word on it. Funny how you pick and choose which researchers to take their word, the led researcher that did the mask study the CDC Director cited as proof masks work literally said her study didn't say that at all. Lastly, the Dunning-Kruger effect was debunked 20 years ago anyway.
When did I claim ethical consumption? Also, I'm more interested in bigger picture things than this dumb JK Rowling shit.
I didn't say any of that... I said you have to look at the effect across the whole study. I used the covid vaccine data as an example; some groups gain overall harm from the vaccine, most groups gain overall benefit, thus overall effect is beneficial. You add it all together to get the overall effect, not that literally everyone in the study must have the same effect. To pick any specific group(s)'s effect and single that out is misleading regardless what study you're doing unless you're specifying that it only applies to said group(s). Also, Dunning-Kruger was debunked like 20 years ago and you guys still acting like it's some bias when it's not.
You're misrepresenting that as the norm vs the general effect seen. I'm sure there's someone that thinks they are the best at something and suck and someone that thinks they suck and they're the best, but those are outliers. Without having been graded on something before, people think they are generally average at most things.
Much more so that that represents the data chart of the Dunning-Kruger study far more accurately. Also, can we admit that Dunning-Kruger was debunked like 20 years ago and stop acting like it's some actual human bias?
No, it isn't debunked. It's a theory, with evidence both for and against, that requires further investigation to unpick where it may be true and where it may not be. There's still every possibility it will survive testing, even if in some amended form.
But you don't "add it all together" in the original Dunning-Kruger study to get the Dunning-Kruger effect. The authors were very explicit in stating the effect was a personal bias exhibited by individuals within the study. It was not the overall effect on the stats.
No, it wasn't. We have a walking, talking example of it right here.
I don't care whether you think it's "the norm", or what you think most people do. That has absolutely zero relevance to anything we're talking about.
First of all, no it doesn't. You just want to believe it does for no other reason than that you just want the people calling you out on your pretentiousness to be wrong about something. But you being too much of a child to so much as acknowledge your unfamiliarity with the topic does not entitle you to redefine terms to suit your purposes.
Second, no it wasn't. There are those who dispute it, but that's both not especially damning in itself and not the same as it being debunked. Moreover, it's irrelevant to the point that you invoked an incorrect definition of the term, which itself was - again - your poor attempt at deflecting from the criticism that you don't know the subject matter. The conversation basically tracks to:
That's more or less how this conversation has gone. Let me be clear here: This is not a spoken conversation, it is a written series of posts. It's a lot harder to make people forget what the point is when the written record is so easy available. You aren't going to trip me up with that. And the only thing you'll succeed in doing by trying that kind of bullshit is to further lower my opinion of you. What you're doing is not clever. It's a transparent effort to try and pretend that the criticism directed at you doesn't count for one reason or another (in this case semantic arguments), with the reason pivoting as soon as you realize that nobody's buying the bullshit you're trying to sell in the evident hope that they'll get so caught up in the new argument that they'll forget the criticism directed at you. And I have no patience for that. Few things short of open bigotry or criminality will get you on my shit list faster than dishonest argumentation or pretentiousness, both of which you have been employing. So either grow up or shut up, because you're quickly wearing down my last nerve.
Last edited:
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
And yeah also that sort of stuff.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive
I'd love to see anyone who honestly thinks that the woke version is better.
Anyway, Salaman Rushdie can put it better than I can.
...but does the book still end with an act of genocide bankrolled by counterfeit money, and a child happy about dying young because he wouldn't want to outlive his grandmother?
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Was there something problematic about it ? I don't remember it well but I have memories of nice cultural exchanges between Bond and Tanaka. Again, it was long ago, and at that time I was even able to read some Tom Clancy without my gums to start bleeding. Also I realise Fleming had hilariously racialist views, but I remember him more focused on hybrids being ungodly, and the swiss and scottish races being the only ones allowed to cross-breed. Wasn't You Only rather tame ?
Or had I just been reading too many Sax Rohmer in contrast ?
Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay for the movie.
Interestingly, apparently a lot of the terrible stereotypes Rohmer used didn't exist before him, he created them rather than researching the ethnicities he was depicting. His Fu Manchu stories got more and more OtT as they went on, I remember him giving up and just having a secret cabal of all Asians out to destroy the west, whatever their nationality. And apparenty, during WW2, US film makers were told to stop making Fu Manchu stories, because China was an ally against Japan.
Though, Brood of the Witch-Queen, by Rohmer but not about Fun Manchu, was alright, IIRC.