Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I mean, yeah. Modern Democrats are center/center-right neo-liberal capitalists. Ronald Reagan won outright
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,555
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Harvard professor who studies honesty accused of falsifying data in studies
Francesca Gino, a prominent Harvard Business School professor, alleged to have falsified results in behavioral science studies
www.theguardian.com
Tee hee hee.
What's the Problem, Papi?
Internet Daddy-ism and Coddling, Fetishization, and what "Latino-looking" actually means. (Miguel O' Hara is hot but it's getting weird.)
rielfication.substack.com
https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates
Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. I'm really not.
Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. I'm really not.
You clearly only cut out my highest, very ballpark-y, estimation and only that. Wild cows, like the auroch, are bigger than a normal cow and would represent more than a single cow if you're computing methane production. So they would not have to be at the numbers of cows. I agree that America probably has the best habit for them, but to say there wouldn't be good numbers of them in Europe or South America or even Asia doesn't make much sense either. I can't even find population estimations of them, it is a rather unknown. I found one study about China having a lot more than originally thought, but no actual estimation given. We don't even have accurate estimations of human populations (like how wide ranging the estimation is of natives to the Americas) let alone wild cows before humans. To act like there is irrefutable evidence that cows are some major issue now and not in the past just isn't true.
No, quite the opposite is true (or was in the case of aurochs.) Typical middling weights for adult cattle are ~1100 kg for a bull and ~700 kg for a cow. That compares with (wild) buffalo at ~900kg and ~500kg respectively. Aurochs were taller than cows, but lighter (estimated ~700kg average and ~1000kg at the higher end for males).
Remember, we selectively bred farm animals to be large, and also overfeed them: in both cases because there's more meat (/milk) production per animal.
There's a very clear balance of evidence going on here. That you're now dropping in the term "irrefutable" is perhaps something of an indicator.
It makes it seem like you have pulled an assumption out of your arse. When presented with the best estimates scientists can give on the matter, you have chosen to simply award your uninformed guess pre-eminent status and are demanding it retains privilege in your belief system until disproven. That's fine from a psychological perspective of what you want to believe, but from the point of view of good practice in reasoning, it's a bust.
Last edited:
Huh, I was going to complain about someone bringing this foolishness up again after almost 2 weeks, but then I learnt something about aurochs, so there's that.
I'm not either. There've been variations of attacking the platform, the concept of debate itself, or your opponent as some form of -ist or -phobe and if they can't prove otherwise you win sort of arguments being the fad for several years now. "My opponent posted something naughty on social media, therefore his argument is invalid" just seems like an evolution of those.
'Can't prove otherwise'
What is this nonsense?
If someone calls some racist, everyone expects to see the receipts
If you disagree that it doesn't reach the level of racism, thats fine. It doesn't mean the person is not racist. It just means YOU dont think they are racist
Lastly, the amount of times that the defense 'that cant be racist' because they are a woke cancelling triggered Marxist or whatever buzzword is popular is ridiculous and generally no receipt are provided. Because using a word like racist is seen as NAUGHTY AND LET'S THE PERSON INVALIDATE THEIR ARGUMENT
This is a classic case of conservatives do what you claim to other people and you whining when they do it back
The term used in policy debate circles is a Kritik (though Kritiks are broader than just this class of arguments), but I don't know if you're familiar.
To use an example, there was an infamous case in 2008 where the topic was farm tariffs, and one of the sides made the mistake of addressing the actual assigned topic. The other declared that racism is inherent to the topic of farm tariffs and thus by engaging with the actual topic her opponent was fostering white supremacy then spent the rest of her time discussing the trans-Atlantic slave trade, reading from her diary, etc. She won that debate, because her opponent failed to provide a sufficient argument that a policy debate about farm tariffs was not the right forum to discuss racism.
Or one team handing something off to the other team saying "Here you go, guys" thus demonstrating their sexism which is now the new topic - and unless you can successfully argue that saying that was definitely not sexist or that whether or not it is sexist is not an appropriate topic for this discussion then you have functionally already lost. You sexist.
Or just arguing that the entire concept of policy debate is itself racist and thus judging based on it rather than considering other ways of knowing possessed by PoC and giving priority to those is white supremacy in action.
Can you link me to somewhere I can read about that? I had a quick search but couldn't find it.
I would say generally no, it's a bunch of filthy tories. I'm sure some of the people there are okay.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,555
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Ok. I have a partial vision of it because what I consume from the BBC (series à la doctor who or panel shows) is consistently openly progressive.
So I have an eye on this
Why isn't BBC presenter being named by the media?
The corporation is investigating claims a presenter paid a teenager for sexually explicit photos.
www.bbc.com
there are a few presenters for whom I'd be sorry to lose my sympathy. I'm hoping they aren't involved.
As an outside, it seems the BBC went downhill pretty fast not that long ago, along with quite a few British institutions.
It's the news/current affairs aspects that's an issue with the BBC (I haven't seen their drama output for years as I won't pay for a licence).
