Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

Setting aside that the 50,000 year time line is just possibility, and that happening in the short term was also a possibility to the point that serious scientific research was put into the potential of imminent global cooling like 50 years ago...

You might have noticed that climatology has improved and refined somewhat in the last half century, as have most branches of science.

It's not an exchange. It's two effects that share a cause, and its imprudent to consider only some effects of an action while ignoring all the others.

You consider all the effects, yes. And if you're being rational, you ascribe much greater weight to the definite, demonstrable effects than you do to vague speculations about what might occur a few dozen thousand years hence.

 

[tstorm823]

You consider all the effects, yes. And if you're being rational, you ascribe much greater weight to the definite, demonstrable effects than you do to vague speculations about what might occur a few dozen thousand years hence.

There is a weight to immediacy, but it's worth remembering that there is infinitely more time after 10,000 years from now than there is before. Do you really think the world is better and better for humanity in a reality where we could not change the climate?

 

[Ag3ma]

Setting aside that the 50,000 year time line is just possibility, and that happening in the short term was also a possibility to the point that serious scientific research was put into the potential of imminent global cooling like 50 years ago...

This is like arguing that phlogiston is credible because serious scientific attention was put into it in the 17th century.

Back in the 1970s there was a thread of concern about atmospheric pollutants like smog, which could decrease the temperature (similar concepts behind "nuclear winter"), and some evidence of cooling in the North Atlantic. However, even at the time the evidence for global warming was much stronger, supported by many more experts in the field, and "global cooling" was pretty much dead by the end of the decade. The credibility of global cooling has been boosted far beyond the strength of its evidence by climate change deniers/skeptics as a PR strategy.

 

[Silvanus]

There is a weight to immediacy, but it's worth remembering that there is infinitely more time after 10,000 years from now than there is before.

Indeed-- and that future will also suffer if we obliterate biodiversity and liveable habitat now. Those are species that could have variegated, developed and evolved later, were they not having to contest with artificial changes over breakneck speeds.

Do you really think the world is better and better for humanity in a reality where we could not change the climate?

Nice try, but that's not the argument. I'm not saying, "it is fundamentally better if we have no control over the climate". I'm saying "the changes we are currently affecting, as a byproduct of greed and our fossil fuel addiction, are harmful".

This is a bit like opining that we shouldn't stop an arsonist, by saying "do you really think we're better off if we can't change the building's temperature??"

 

[tstorm823]

Nice try, but that's not the argument. I'm not saying,

Why does it matter what you're saying when you're the one reacting to me? If you're not in the same argument as me, that's your fault.

 

[Silvanus]

Why does it matter what you're saying when you're the one reacting to me? If you're not in the same argument as me, that's your fault.

We're both reacting to eachother. That's how conversations work. You asked me a question, and I told you it was not relevant.

Because you weren't merely saying "it would be good for humans to have control of the climate". Your statements went a great deal further than that, including making many dubious claims about the current form of anthropogenic climate change. It is valid to respond to those claims, and if you then reply by asking me about a very different position, it's also valid to tell you that question isn't relevant to my objections.

 

[tstorm823]

We're both reacting to eachother. That's how conversations work. You asked me a question, and I told you it was not relevant.

Because you weren't merely saying "it would be good for humans to have control of the climate". Your statements went a great deal further than that, including making many dubious claims about the current form of anthropogenic climate change. It is valid to respond to those claims, and if you then reply by asking me about a very different position, it's also valid to tell you that question isn't relevant to my objections.

If the question isn't relevant to your objections, your objections aren't relevant to me.

 

[Silvanus]

If the question isn't relevant to your objections, your objections aren't relevant to me.

You can deflect from them all you like. The fact is you made numerous claims about anthropogenic climate change as it is, quite apart from any vague statements about whether its better in principle for humans to have control over the climate.

If you don't want to defend those claims any longer, and would rather shift onto a different position, that's absolutely fine with me-- just be honest about it.

 

[Gergar12]

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/28/1178648989/state-farm-home-insurance-california-wildfires-inflation

Dear California.

AHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAAHAHHAAHHA

 

[Gergar12]

Asian-American teen who could end affirmative action in Supreme Court

An 18-year-old student who got a 1590 on his SAT and a 4.65 high school GPA but was rejected by six top schools may be the key to a lawsuit that would end affirmative action.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dear all Asians, and mainly Asian males like me, you are not welcome in America, they hate you, they despise you, you could be a hero in the Iraq War and you will always be known as someone who is boring, and has small sexual organs. That is what many lefty activists think of you, that is what many college admin officers think of you, that is what the Biden admin thinks of you, that is what Trump thinks of you, and it goes on. You're an alien, a third-class citizen because America always needs an other to ostracize, and your it.

They hate you if you are Vietnamese, or Chinese because you don't fall in line like Japan's government, South Korea, or Taiwan.

Now if you will excuse me I will go back to where I came from.

 

[dreng3]

Asian-American teen who could end affirmative action in Supreme Court

An 18-year-old student who got a 1590 on his SAT and a 4.65 high school GPA but was rejected by six top schools may be the key to a lawsuit that would end affirmative action.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dear all Asians, and mainly Asian males like me, you are not welcome in America, they hate you, they despise you, you could be a hero in the Iraq War and you will always be known as someone who is boring, and has small sexual organs. That is what many lefty activists think of you, that is what many college admin officers think of you, that is what the Biden admin thinks of you, that is what Trump thinks of you, and it goes on. You're an alien, a third-class citizen because America always needs an other to ostracize, and your it.

They hate you if you are Vietnamese, or Chinese because you don't fall in line like Japan's government, South Korea, or Taiwan.

Now if you will excuse me I will go back to where I came from.

Weren't all of those applications as an out-of-state-applicant? How many of those go through, because I recall reading somewhere that it is preciously few. Second, I've seen some posters elsewhere question his lack of extracurriculars, in that he didn't have enough or ones relevant enough, as well as the fact that 4.65 GPA whil decent isn't actually that great when it comes to very smart folks boosting their GPA with AP courses?

 

[Ag3ma]

Now if you will excuse me I will go back to where I came from.

Asian Americans made up about a quarter of Harvard's students in 2023 (up from a fifth the year before) despite being just 6% of the US population. That is hardly a statistic that readily screams anti-Asian discrimination.

At face value, this case may well fail, as academic results are not the sole criterion for entry, and colleges tend to make that clear. There's a minimum grade requirement, not a best grade requirement. As long as that minimum grade were reached, an academically weaker student can be selected over a stronger through the other criteria. These stories come out every year: "student gets A** 153% and denied entry to Harvard / MIT / Oxford / etc.", because they make for good headlines that brush under the carpet issues like other criteria or dumb luck.

Of course, a key element of the anti-affirmative action movement is the stance that there is one thing universities are absolutely allowed to disciminate on: if mummy and daddy were rich enough to buy very expensive schooling (and potentially bribe the institution with a "donation"). That's totally fine, because people at the top of the heap expect to be able to buy preferential treatment.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Asian Americans made up about a quarter of Harvard's students in 2023 (up from a fifth the year before) despite being just 6% of the US population. That is hardly a statistic that readily screams anti-Asian discrimination.

At face value, this case may well fail, as academic results are not the sole criterion for entry, and colleges tend to make that clear. There's a minimum grade requirement, not a best grade requirement. As long as that minimum grade were reached, an academically weaker student can be selected over a stronger through the other criteria. These stories come out every year: "student gets A** 153% and denied entry to Harvard / MIT / Oxford / etc.", because they make for good headlines that brush under the carpet issues like other criteria or dumb luck.

Of course, a key element of the anti-affirmative action movement is the stance that there is one thing universities are absolutely allowed to disciminate on: if mummy and daddy were rich enough to buy very expensive schooling (and potentially bribe the institution with a "donation"). That's totally fine, because people at the top of the heap expect to be able to buy preferential treatment.

Yeah, imagine being mad at affirmative action when a third of the inductees are nepotism children

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"OMFG, don't you understand how everything in the triathlon was redone BUT WITH trees instead of people?"



OK, so here's a question.

Let's say researchers asked 100 people in an office block how comfortable they were with the temperature, on a scale of 1-6, with 6 being too hot, 1 being too cold, and 3 being just right. They get a range of answers, which trends towards most people thinking it's too hot.

Then another researcher says, "I'm gonna redo this study". He rolls 100 dice, and gets an average return that's above 3.

He then concludes that the people in the office block don't think it's too hot after all! The original study was bunk, because it was just redone with random numbers and they got the same result! So obviously people don't think it's too hot!

Do you see how that's complete bollocks?

Just wow, that's so not even close to what happened. You do realize most professionals that have actually analyzed Dunning-Kruger say it's bunk, that's your so-called "scientific consensus" right there. The math was literally done wrong.

It doesn't tell you exactly, but you also need to be irrationally obstructive not to see the very strong implication.



A cow weighs about a tonne. An elephant weighs about 5 tonnes (less if Asian). So if we make a not unreasonable assumption that their methane production is roughly the same per unit biomass, 25 million elephants is equivalent to about 125 million cows.

Let me remind you that there are over 1 billion cows in today's world. Also not including sheep, goats and other methane-producing ruminants that are farmed.

I'm also just going to put it out there that about 80% of natural production of methane comes from wetlands. (Which makes sense, given the prior information about methane from rice production.)

Again, just tell me the simply how much methane (or total GHG) is from animals before humans started majorly taking over habits and now. That's what I need to know. Just telling me how much more livestock emissions go up is only part of the picture. Their population has gone up but other animal populations have dropped massively as well.

Came across this:

Wild ruminants burp methane, too

Hoard's Dairyman reports that dairy and beef cattle often receive the brunt of the blame when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Initial research overstated their actual effect on the environment. But to see the total picture, we must also include wild

hoards.com

Wait. Waitwaitwait. Your take on this (Yours, I've read your linked articles and that this is definitely YOUR assessment of their words), is that the math has been done in such a way that no matter what entries are put into the fields, the resulting graph will always be the same.

NO MATTER WHAT ENTRIES ARE PUT INTO THE FIELDS, THE RESULT IS THE SAME.

That one was just to let yourself hear it out loud again.

Man. I was going to insult your intelligence here, but do I need to?

Here is literally the math that says so...

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation – Economics from the Top Down

Do unskilled people actually underestimate their incompetence?

economicsfromthetopdown.com

 

[Ag3ma]

Again, just tell me the simply how much methane (or total GHG) is from animals before humans started majorly taking over habits and now. That's what I need to know. Just telling me how much more livestock emissions go up is only part of the picture. Their population has gone up but other animal populations have dropped massively as well.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222001014

This estimates that the total biomass of wild mammals pre-civilisation (up to ~12,000 years ago) was 40 teragrams (Tg), and is now 7 Tg. It suggests the biomass of livestock alone these days is 100 Tg, so two-and-a-half times greater than the entire biomass of mammals in recent prehistory. Therefore, modern agriculture will be creating vastly more methane than was produced by wild animals in prehistory.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusb.v38i3-4.15135

This estimates that the total production of methane by mammals is around 78 Tg/y, of which wild animals produce 2-6 Tg/y (say, 4 Tg/y). If we take the above estimate that there are about a sixth as many wild animals as prehistory, this would suggest in prehistory maybe ~24 Tg/y of methane. This is a third of the estimated livestock methane production today.

Of course, this paper also dates from 1986, and there's lots more livestock now than in 1986.

 

[Gergar12]

Asian-American teen who could end affirmative action in Supreme Court

An 18-year-old student who got a 1590 on his SAT and a 4.65 high school GPA but was rejected by six top schools may be the key to a lawsuit that would end affirmative action.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dear all Asians, and mainly Asian males like me, you are not welcome in America, they hate you, they despise you, you could be a hero in the Iraq War and you will always be known as someone who is boring, and has small sexual organs. That is what many lefty activists think of you, that is what many college admin officers think of you, that is what the Biden admin thinks of you, that is what Trump thinks of you, and it goes on. You're an alien, a third-class citizen because America always needs an other to ostracize, and your it.

They hate you if you are Vietnamese, or Chinese because you don't fall in line like Japan's government, South Korea, or Taiwan.

Now if you will excuse me I will go back to where I came from.

No, I don't actually hate affirmative action I am for it, in fact, my argument is actually more complex than that, I was just raging because I am sick of people(mostly West and East Coast democrats alongside Republicans)making fun of incel-like men, Asian men, Chinese men, men in general, and neurodivergent men in general. Also before any of you elitists in the forums state life isn't fair then let's not do anything about it. Okay then, No Medicaid, no SS, no Medicare like nothing because taken to the logical extreme let's not solve anything regarding social progress. That was basically the comment section of the tik tok videos of this smart Asian man who is likely like me lashing out because he did everything he was supposed to only to get rejected from his dreams like I was mine, and got laughed at like me in school. They were making fun of us.

My position is that the way the Ivy League is doing it is forcing Asian men, and Asian women to a lesser extent to jump through more hoops to get accepted. That is racist, and yes it's unfair, and life is unfair, but it's a shitty thing to do. I would prefer they give every person an equal chance with the same GPA, SAT, etc requirements but assign points to the outside-of-school activities. Also, people were using subjective opinions like the college admin saying he played golf, and golf is boring, and that pissed me off. I would actually be happier, and it would be better if they stated outright they were doing racial quotas like the VISA lottery, but everyone could a 3.8 GPA, and 1500 SAT or above could have a chance of getting in even if fewer Asians got in.

My second point is the fact that America hates Asian men, incels, men, and Chinese men. They just do. Many of us Chinese men are in the kitchen in restaurants because we aren't on the coasts because the locals won't hire us. They and especially many women hate incels men who are neurodivergent for no fault of their own in comment sections. I can't help that I was born short or Asian.

Also, I felt many lefty activists were gaslighting me about rich people getting into Ivy League as rich people not in Ivy League colleges basically means without connections and they basically want to get rich at the expense of others instead of increasing the pie.

It felt also like the Tik tok people were like MEMMEMEMEEMMEMEMEME vs expanding the pie. Every political group I have joined has made fun of me, and Asians; conservatives, progressives, and liberals. The conservatives are the ones that did it the least funny enough. That is the truth in America.

Oh, and the reason we need a diverse Ivy League College is due to needing a diverse pool of leaders in America. (who hopefully aren't made up of assholes on Tik Tok)

Also, liberals are starting to become more authoritarian like the Canadian PM who implements CBDC and freeze people's bank accounts for protesting, and liberals went along with it.

Many progressives and liberals have stated that Asian men are racists, sexists, etc. The don't say that about any other race.

 

[Silvanus]

Just wow, that's so not even close to what happened.

They succeeded in recreating a weaker approximation of a study's result by generating random numbers and applying an analytic formula to the results.

Your position is exactly as strong as that of the foolish second researcher in my hypothetical.

You do realize most professionals that have actually analyzed Dunning-Kruger say it's bunk, that's your so-called "scientific consensus" right there. The math was literally done wrong.

This is undoubtedly just a result of you finding a few researchers that agree with you, and then ignoring or dismissing all the rest because you've deemed them "bad studies" on the basis of minor procedural misunderstandings you've made.

 

[Silvanus]

I was just raging because I am sick of people(mostly West and East Coast democrats alongside Republicans)making fun of incel-like men, Asian men, Chinese men, men in general, and neurodivergent men in general.

Just stop here a minute; what specifically are you referring to here? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just want to know which behaviours and statements you're referring to, and who is making them-- politicians, regular people, companies?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd also like to know if by "incel" you mean men who are single, or men who have adopted the incel ideology. Cause the latter is not hated nearly as much as it should be.

 

[Gergar12]

Just stop here a minute; what specifically are you referring to here? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just want to know which behaviours and statements you're referring to, and who is making them-- politicians, regular people, companies?

Tik tok