Remember, caring about racism is woke nonsense, unless it's racism directed against white people and then it's super serious and no nuance is allowed..
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Yes, but the overwhelming problem is that she is wrong. And she's not just wrong, she manages to express being wrong in a way that is also extraordinary painful, and also ruinous for her party given its last few years with a bit of an antisemitism problem.
I agree to some extent that she is mostly being hammered by comfortable white people who can be remarkably free with other forms of bigotry. And I certainly appreciate that left-wingers are held to much higher standards than their opponents, who can often get away with much worse because their voters share those prejudices. But it just doesn't change the fact that this was a staggeringly ill-considered thing to release into the public domain.
A sitting member of the UK parliament telling the Irish they've never really been oppressed is really special, too.
I mean it's pretty simple. For a long time she's been kind of an embarrassment for Labour but has kept winning votes somehow. She's gone on live radio and failed basic maths, she's made stupid statements before but this not really why she's being pushed out. She was a Corbyn loyalist and literally and ex girlfriend of Corbyn.
You're acting like it's some extreme or wacky take on psychology when it's not.
Yes, they did redo the study with random numbers as explained in this very article...
The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real
I want the Dunning-Kruger effect to be real. First described in a seminal 1999 paper by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, this effect has been the darling of journalists who want to explain why dumb people don’t know they’re dumb. There’s even video of a fantastic pastiche of Turandot’s famous...
www.mcgill.ca
So if you think someone is lucky and rolls more 20s than normal and a random dice roller rolls the same amount of 20s, it doesn't prove that the person isn't lucky?
In what sense?
She didn't claim that the earth is flat, or that the holocaust was made up, or that man made global warming doesn't exist.
Like it or not, there is a genuine complexity here. Abbott is not alone in feeling the way she does, because she is reacting to something that is undeniably real. Someone who looks like Diane Abbott will get treated differently, on an immediate day to day level, from someone who looks like Grant Shapps, because one of them is white and the other is not.
The reason I believe Diane is wrong is not because her definition of race is incoherent, but because there isn't a clear, single definition of race. It's not a coherent or logically sound concept. Accurately defining race and thus racism is a wasted effort because racism doesn't make sense in the first place. The fact that Shapps looks like any other white person doesn't mean a racist is going to believe that he is just like any other white person. Racists aren't necessarily reacting to anything real.
But how far can we go with this? Is prejudice against gay people racism? Is prejudice against communists racism? What about classism? Those might sound like stupid questions, but in terms of the history of racism they absolutely aren't. Racism used to be a thing basically everyone believed, it was a totalizing system for judging the worth of human beings.
How are any of these forms of prejudice actually different from prejudice against Irish people, for example? There isn't an answer to that.
And to be perfectly blunt, I don't think the people criticizing Abbott are doing it because they want an honest, complex national debate on the meaning and lived experience of racism, because that would mean having to care about forms of racism that aren't directed against white people, and it seems like noone with any power in the political system has any stomach for that at all.
She de facto said that Jews, Irish and Travellers do not experience racism. This is, basically, wrong. Just because they can't always be visibly picked out on the street by racists, and just because they weren't stolen from their homeland to labour on overseas plantations or forced to sit at the back of the bus is not grounds to say the prejudice they face is not racism.
I think there is a validity in saying that no two forms of racism are the same. How Jews experience antisemitism is different from how black people experience anti-black racism. There is certainly room to usefully discuss this - but an eight sentence letter to a national newspaper is not the place and does not have the volume of text to do it justice. That it implicitly trivialises the prejudice faced by some groups is even worse.
No, you've completely missed the point I was making.
Psychology does have a problem with replication. My point was that using that problem to disparage one particular area of study, while failing to acknowledge that the same problem is universal to the field, isn't a valid approach.
It's already been explained to you how that wasn't the "same study".
The original study involved asking respondents to self-evaluate. How do you ask random numbers to self-evaluate, Phoenix?
ABSOLUTE LOL
Huh? I said that you should take anything from psychology with massive grains of salt. I always thought that it was kinda of wacky that people think the human brain is as understandable as psychology makes it out to be.
You don't ask the "respondents", you just assign them random numbers as their response like a game randomly making a character in an RPG and assigning it stats. If the random numbers show the same trend, then it's obviously not a human bias.
So not the same study, then. They didn't follow the same procedure that forms the very basis of the original study.
It is the same study just done with randomly generated numbers. Also they not only did a random number study replication but they did a study of real people with their real answers to a science literacy test. But, of course, you didn't read the link at all. You just don't wanna accept literally anything I provide as valid. Maybe you should go tell the doctors that did the study it was a complete waste of their time and was completely useless. Maybe we need to completely rethink how people become doctors if someone on a gaming forum can point out how useless all these doctors' works are.
And a completely different procedure.
I'm not, though, because the doctors aren't making the claims you're ascribing to them or their work.
Trigger warnings upsetting people now
Yes the people who want trigger warnings are screeching in the replies about how this is a red flag........ not realising that's the point, this is what they wanted and they're seemingly upset about it lol
Yes the people who want trigger warnings are screeching in the replies about how this is a red flag........ not realising that's the point, this is what they wanted and they're seemingly upset about it lol
Skimmed it, only person who seemed upset in first few responses was Pidpare, everyone else seemed to be shrugging and saying they wouldn't be playing. Did you link the wrong tweet?
Last edited:
That's screeching is it? Genuinely surprised sometimes by how much someone's biases can distort what they're looking at. Like, I can see the tweets, and I'd seen those ones and honestly don't see how this is what you've come back with as proof of people being upset. You could have linked to these instead because these guys seem much more upset:
And if you define race on the basis of observable physical differences (which most people do, or at least pretend to do) and racism as prejudice based of those observable physical differences, then she is correct.
That definition of race and racism is clearly inadequate, isn't enough to make sense of the history or even to some extent the present reality of racism. It assumes that everyone basically agrees on what a race is, when the reality is they don't. But again, that lack of clarity cuts both ways.
What is grounds to say that any form of prejudice that has ever been racialized is not racism?
Somehow, I don't think any of the people denouncing the unacceptability of Abbott's statement would be very sympathetic if I started declaring that prejudice against working class people or disabled people or muslims was racist, despite the fact all of these have been a part of racism at one point or another and often still are, implicitly or otherwise. They certainly weren't happy about her own comparison with discimination against people with red hair.
In short, they're not mad that she's drawing an arbitrary line around the category of racism, they're just mad that she's drawn that line in a way that emphasizes the difference between her own experience of prejudice as a black person and those of a white minorities.
But is she not allowed to do that? Is that not a personal choice? Does she not have the right to define the wholly imaginary concept of race for herself?
Does it not implicitly trivialize the prejudice faced by black people in the UK to compare it to the treatment of white Irish people?
Those two groups do not get treated the same.
I'm sorry but I've had this argument other places already and I was going to leave this be here but as it's coming back again I feel like stepping into it now.
This is a couple's argument they're not pretty really and this is the smoking gun people have vs Crowder? This?
To lay my cards on the table. I've seen some Crowder, not a huge fan, dude sometimes has good points, other times he's a complete moron that doesn't know what he's talking about. Some humour lands for me, some really doesn't and he comes off as a jackass sometimes. Not watch more than maybe an hour total of his stuff.
In terms of the video he comes off and weirdly almost autistic (set schedule, doesn't want to deviate from things etc etc) while his wife comes off as weirdly almost sociopathic (in this context attempting to use weighted emotional terms to get a desired result).
Watching the seemingly original version of the video leaked online
Exclusive: Video Reveals Steven Crowder Emotionally Abusing Wife. In Statement, Hilary Crowder's Family Says She Hid His Emotionally Abusive Behavior For Years
Conservative media host and commentator Steven Crowder can be seen on a Ring Camera video berating his wife Hilary, who was at the time nearly eight months pregnant, and demanding that she handle medicine for his dogs that she was concerned was toxic to pregnant women. In the video, he snaps at...
yashar.substack.com
It's actually possible to tell the video has been edited including segments where audio appears to be muted and subs not added for things being said and some cuts or jumps in the content too.
To actually reference Anita Sarkeesian here (and not the bash her) hasn't it been Anita and others telling people not to treat Pregnant women like china dolls incapable of doing anything?
You want an own on Crowder for this?
Dude apparently is living in a place with a fucking pool but can't afford a 2nd car for his household, that's stupid messes up stuff there.