Funny events in anti-woke world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,190
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
Oh and criminal defamation is almost never prosecuted it just remains on the book as a law. Like how it was illegal to see a grey squirrel and not report it to pest control in the UK.

Also again it was a defamatory remark and the only criticism was the rather stupid call that said Factorio Dev should join in the defamation and I don't consider the theme of "Why won't you jump with me off this cliff" to be any kind of actually valid criticism of a person and I have to question who honestly would? IMHO the person who would consider such thing to be valid criticism is some-one who is very into the idea of peer pressure either using it themselves or being very susceptible to it and been pressured into a lot of stuff.
As I said before, I'm not interested in why you consider certain criticisms to be invalid. It's irrelevant blustering about opinions you don't like.

They were presented as such.
I can't see a single reason to take that obviously subjective statement as a claim of fact.

No, we do not need to preface every statement of opinion with "I feel..." in order for it to be recognised as a statement of opinion. Utterly unnecessary.

You did however make the specific claim that none of the options I put forward was the right answer. So how do you know the right one when so far people haven't objected to the thing.
How does this justify the false accusation that people condoned abuse and harassment?

Yet why would they refuse to clarify unless it was a poor PR move and they knew it to tell the truth of their position.
Probably because its a waste of time; I've clarified what my own position is dozens of times (criticism = fine, abuse and harassment = not fine) but you just keep hurling false accusations anyway.

If you ignore what we say, why keep trying to clarify? After the umpteenth time it starts to feel futile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
1,529
1,291
118
Britannialand
Cambridge analytica, why hello again old friend.


Since the beginning of the chats, Patrick Fagan—who is not acknowledged on the website as part of HART—has had a role in shaping HART’s messaging. A behavioral scientist whose work utilizes psychology to influence people’s actions, Fagan is currently the chief scientific officer at the behavioral science consultancy group Capuchin. The company relies on “psychometrics, implicit testing, eye-tracking, facial coding, EEG” and other methods to increase revenue streams for businesses.

In a manifesto shared with the group in early January, Fagan argues that behavioral science has an ethics problem: “I should know: I was formerly the Lead Psychologist at Cambridge Analytica, and I’ve since worked for tobacco companies, gambling sites, and voter deterrence campaigns.”

Fagan’s paper, titled “Pushing Back against the Nudges,” announces the launch of a “Counter-Nudge Unit” designed to push back on government messaging regarding the pandemic.

“For the uninitiated, nudging is the idea of using psychological principles to give people a gentle bump in the right direction, rather than forcing compliance,” Fagan writes.

The leaked messages appear to indicate that several chat rooms were set up in the wake of Fagan’s paper with names such as “Nudge” and “Psych ops.” The Nudge room, according to screenshots of its description, involves “strategy materials to effect change in public beliefs / behaviour.”

The “Psych ops” channel seems to have later been changed to “persuasion” after members expressed concerns that the group would look hypocritical if it appeared to be “using covert strategies which we have critiqued the ‘other side’ for.”

A second user concurred, noting the potential fallout that could ensue if a leak exposed the channel’s name.

“I would agree,” the user said. “Especially just in case of leak/hack, and maybe merge ‘nudge’ with this channel e.g. delete that and put everything in here?”



Further into his manifesto, Fagan goes on to make a link between policies regarding face masks and citizens being forced into internment camps.

“This is something lockdown fanatics don’t understand,” Fagan writes. “They cannot see how, ‘Just wear the face mask, it’s only a piece of cloth,’ becomes, ‘Just skip Christmas, it’s only one year,’ becomes, ‘Just go to the internment camp, it’s only for a week.'”

A highly sanitized version of Fagan’s paper was published months later in the British magazine the Critic, which did not include his comments linking face masks to internment camps or mention his previous work in voter deterrence or the tobacco and gambling industries.

Aside from his own documents, Fagan also shared a file from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding “mass psychogenic illness,” a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people simultaneously feel sick despite no infectious agent being present.

Asterisks were placed by Fagan around a specific passage in the document detailing how a chemical, biological, or radiological attack could produce more cases of psychogenic illness than actual casualties. Given the HART group’s focus on COVID-19, the insinuation is clear.


Fagan also weighed in on the questioning of influencing children and teens with anti-vaccine content, noting that the group could be seen as “child murderers” if they were to push anti-vaccine content to minors.

“In the eyes of the sleeping public we would basically be seen as child murderers,” Fagan wrote.



Fagan and Capuchin did not respond to inquires from the Daily Dot regarding his work with HART.
 
Last edited:

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,832
3,973
118
If you ignore what we say, why keep trying to clarify? After the umpteenth time it starts to feel futile.
On a personal basis, I decided if someone is going to ignore what I said pathologically enough, there's a forum function to offer the same in return.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,832
3,973
118
Cambridge analytica, why hello again old friend.
Nice slippery slope in there.

It's right up there with arguing "Hey, I just tried smoking" is destined to become "Hey, I just tried heroin" and soon will be "Hey I just murdered my parents to steal £50 for my next fix". And we can clearly see from the data that every smoker ends up murdering their parents.
 

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
1,529
1,291
118
Britannialand
Nice slippery slope in there.

It's right up there with arguing "Hey, I just tried smoking" is destined to become "Hey, I just tried heroin" and soon will be "Hey I just murdered my parents to steal £50 for my next fix". And we can clearly see from the data that every smoker ends up murdering their parents.
Curious that a behavioural scientist would be so ignorant of such a basic and extremely unnuanced example of a common logical fallacy too.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,832
3,973
118
Curious that a behavioural scientist would be so ignorant of such a basic and extremely unnuanced example of a common logical fallacy too.
It's not, because even the smartest people on the planet make hugely embarrassing logical pratfalls at various points. Nor does a great behavioural scientist necessarily make for a good logician: philosophers would probably be the "experts" in ability to put together a logically watertight argument. Secondly people who are immensely intelligent or competent in certain ways can also be incredibly ignorant, incompetent or stupid in others - or indeed quite crazy.

The other possibility of course is that a behavioural scientist might do it deliberately because they think they know how their intended audience thinks.

The final note is that no behavioural scientist who hawks his expertise to companies whose revenues depend on manipulating the public has any business moralising about manipulating the public. People like him are the problem, because in the end their income can only ever come from service to those who want to control. Bottom line, he's just a conniving, hypocritical, selfish ****, isn't he?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
As I said before, I'm not interested in why you consider certain criticisms to be invalid. It's irrelevant blustering about opinions you don't like.
So you're not interested in my position and reasoning just in demanding I accept yours. Just as I figured. It's irrelevant blustering in your view because all that seems to matter is me accepting your views like the fact it took 18+ times before of me stating my position before you'd even consider maybe it was mine and what you were claiming was my position actually wasn't.


I can't see a single reason to take that obviously subjective statement as a claim of fact.

No, we do not need to preface every statement of opinion with "I feel..." in order for it to be recognised as a statement of opinion. Utterly unnecessary.
You mean other than them being presented as objective and honesty would suggest the claims have far more factual basis.


How does this justify the false accusation that people condoned abuse and harassment?
Because there is nothing supporting your claim.


Probably because its a waste of time; I've clarified what my own position is dozens of times (criticism = fine, abuse and harassment = not fine) but you just keep hurling false accusations anyway.

If you ignore what we say, why keep trying to clarify? After the umpteenth time it starts to feel futile.
And yet you're defending flagrantly false allegations against a person as just criticism
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,190
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
So you're not interested in my position and reasoning just in demanding I accept yours. Just as I figured. It's irrelevant blustering in your view because all that seems to matter is me accepting your views like the fact it took 18+ times before of me stating my position before you'd even consider maybe it was mine and what you were claiming was my position actually wasn't.
When you're stating "your position" as a justification for making a false accusation, then yeah, I'm not interested. It doesn't address what we're talking about, so I couldn't care less.


You mean other than them being presented as objective and honesty would suggest the claims have far more factual basis.
"Presenting as objective" just literally means "they didn't explicitly say 'i feel' before it".

It's obviously an opinion, because subjective statements literally cannot be statements of fact.

Because there is nothing supporting your claim.
You explicitly accused three posters (myself, Terminal Blue, and Avnger) of condoning abuse and harassment. That's quite obviously available for anyone to refer to.

None of us ever did. That's not really arguable at this point.

That was a false accusation.

And yet you're defending flagrantly false allegations against a person as just criticism
I'm willing to defend criticism from those who would come up with limp-dick excuses to term it "invalid" and banish criticisms they don't like from online forums, yes.

It never stops amusing me how the free speech defenders will happily become censorious as soon as it's speech they don't like very much.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,190
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
On a personal basis, I decided if someone is going to ignore what I said pathologically enough, there's a forum function to offer the same in return.
I'm getting close to that point. But I'm generally quite proud of not having anyone blocked. I only once blocked anyone on the old Escapist forums (Houseman), but didn't even renew that on the new forums.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
When you're stating "your position" as a justification for making a false accusation, then yeah, I'm not interested. It doesn't address what we're talking about, so I couldn't care less.
And yet the Factorio poster was just being critical right?

Despite the fact I was far more clear to state that it seemed like people were doing certain things to me and it may not have been intentional hence the options I gave.

Funny how that works isn't it? Stating Uncle Bob have caused harm (an objective statement of fact) is just criticism.
Me stating it seems like people are holding x position and would they wish to clarify = now objectively false accusation against them.

It seems it's not merely my justification you couldn't care less for but also consistency in general.



"Presenting as objective" just literally means "they didn't explicitly say 'i feel' before it".

It's obviously an opinion, because subjective statements literally cannot be statements of fact.
So therefore you cannot make accusations at me as clearly it was only my opinion right?


You explicitly accused three posters (myself, Terminal Blue, and Avnger) of condoning abuse and harassment. That's quite obviously available for anyone to refer to.

None of us ever did. That's not really arguable at this point.

That was a false accusation.
Oh but it's clear just my opinion on what you did is it not?
Funny how that works isn't it?


I'm willing to defend criticism from those who would come up with limp-dick excuses to term it "invalid" and banish criticisms they don't like from online forums, yes.

It never stops amusing me how the free speech defenders will happily become censorious as soon as it's speech they don't like very much.
It never stops amusing me how people seem to wish to see only their speech allowed and will do whatever they can to suppress others speech be it via Hecklers Veto or some kind of modern struggle session and claiming to prevent that is silencing their free speech while they don't give a damn about the person they're trying to silence or their rights.
What you seem to forget is I said or at least implied the Factorio Dev's reply was appropriate. Speech being used in return for speech. I didn't say the speech should be banned which you seem to not have noticed.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,832
3,973
118
I'm getting close to that point. But I'm generally quite proud of not having anyone blocked. I only once blocked anyone on the old Escapist forums (Houseman), but didn't even renew that on the new forums.
I think I've blocked fewer than half a dozen, ever. A couple because they were so unremittingly hostile that civil discussion was impossible, but mostly for being so full of shit and brazenly dishonest in the process that every discussion was a worthless shitshow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,190
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
And yet the Factorio poster was just being critical right?

Despite the fact I was far more clear to state that it seemed like people were doing certain things to me and it may not have been intentional hence the options I gave.

Funny how that works isn't it? Stating Uncle Bob have caused harm (an objective statement of fact) is just criticism.
Me stating it seems like people are holding x position and would they wish to clarify = now objectively false accusation against them.

It seems it's not merely my justification you couldn't care less for but also consistency in general.
You didn't say "It seems like people are holding X position". You said, "Oh, so abuse and harassment are okay now!?!"

Not an open invitation to clarify. A direct false accusation of something.

So therefore you cannot make accusations at me as clearly it was only my opinion right?
"X condones abuse" = factual claim about something taking place.

"Y is harmful" = value judgement, since "harmful" does not have an objective/demonstrable/specific definition.

It's not difficult. You make a subjective statement, you're fine; you lie about what someone did, you're not fine.

It never stops amusing me how people seem to wish to see only their speech allowed and will do whatever they can to suppress others speech be it via Hecklers Veto or some kind of modern struggle session and claiming to prevent that is silencing their free speech while they don't give a damn about the person they're trying to silence or their rights.
I have no problem at all with "suppressing" false accusations. Of course, here the term "suppressing" just means "calling out".
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,190
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
I think I've blocked fewer than half a dozen, ever. A couple because they were so unremittingly hostile that civil discussion was impossible, but mostly for being so full of shit and brazenly dishonest in the process that every discussion was a worthless shitshow.
1627773388897.png
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
You didn't say "It seems like people are holding X position". You said, "Oh, so abuse and harassment are okay now!?!"

Not an open invitation to clarify. A direct false accusation of something.1
So question marks no longer mean I'm asking a question?


"X condones abuse" = factual claim about something taking place.

"Y is harmful" = value judgement, since "harmful" does not have an objective/demonstrable/specific definition.

It's not difficult. You make a subjective statement, you're fine; you lie about what someone did, you're not fine.
Abuse itself is value judgement. As a reminder Anita Sarkeesian at the UN said abuse was people online telling her she's wrong at one point.


I have no problem at all with "suppressing" false accusations. Of course, here the term "suppressing" just means "calling out".
And yet 18+ times you had to be corrected after making false accusations yourself. So I take it you're going to be calling yourself out now?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,190
1,855
118
Country
United Kingdom
So question marks no longer mean I'm asking a question?
Oh yeah, because that was totally intended as a question asked in good faith, rather than an accusation. Jesus wept.


Abuse itself is value judgement.
Accusations of specific actions (like those you made at me, Terminal Blue and Avnger) aren't.

And yet 18+ times you had to be corrected after making false accusations yourself. So I take it you're going to be calling yourself out now?
Nice deflection.

You just denied something over and over again (conflating criticism with abuse), and then reverted to doing it again a bit later. I don't take your denials at face value, because they're pretty meaningless.

Denial is not "correction".
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,577
148
68
Country
US
Well the translation of Game of Thrones phrase Valar Morghulis will get you banned on twitter in some cases permanently.
Used to be it was perfectly OK, but gender swapping it was an immediate ban. So, at least that's more consistent.

There's other phrases too (Test them if you want but know you could get permabanned on twitter).
They've been blacklisting "wrong" phrases and actively manipulating what's trending for at least 8 years now. It's much simpler to go "you know those $PEOPLE_WE_DONT_LIKE use $WORD a lot, so let's just ban uses of $WORD!" then actually put much thought behind your moderation. The tools they've been using are pretty basic but pretty effective - blocking certain results from search, prioritizing others, artificially promoting or blocking things from trending, they've even played with a few flavors of shadowbanning people - including at one point having a user I'm familiar with in a state where her posts were only visible to her, people who followed her, people who searched specifically for her, and people who followed direct links to her profile or one of her posts - to everyone else it was like she simply didn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
3,880
381
88
Oh yeah, because that was totally intended as a question asked in good faith, rather than an accusation. Jesus wept.
Oh look there you go again telling me my intent. Funny how you object to me posing a question which was a short hand way of going "Is this really your position?" but apparently it's fine for you to just state what my position is even if evidence contradicts it.
So I'd suggest your implications of bad faith engagement might be more your own guilt being projected.



Accusations of specific actions (like those you made at me, Terminal Blue and Avnger) aren't.
So questions about specific actions that you've chosen to interpret as accusations on a fairly subjective term these days the idea of abuse and condoning vs not condoning aren't value judgements.
But stating categorically that a person has harmed others isn't an accusation of a specific wrongdoing?


Nice deflection.

You just denied something over and over again (conflating criticism with abuse), and then reverted to doing it again a bit later. I don't take your denials at face value, because they're pretty meaningless.

Denial is not "correction".
Except I very clearly wasn't and the only reason to accuse me of such was to strawman me to make it easier for your argument.
Also lets be clear criticism with cancel culture is what I would be conflating but as I stated what was going on and being said was cancel culture.

As for my denials at face value, well yes you do have a habit of telling other people their views and intent and see no issue with it but so strongly object to others even suggesting a person holds a view they don't and presenting it as a question.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,050
1,735
118
Country
United States
So, trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, expected to easily win gold by terfs (thereby destroying women's sports) and expected to not medal by anybody paying attention, has used her insurmountable trans advantage to literally place last in weightlifting earlier today

TERFs have decided that that's bad because it normalizes trans women participating in sports, thereby destroying women's sports at an undefined future date.

You know, like a conspiracy theorist would say.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,870
1,437
118
So, trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, expected to easily win gold by terfs (thereby destroying women's sports) and expected to not medal by anybody paying attention, has used her insurmountable trans advantage to literally place last in weightlifting earlier today

TERFs have decided that that's bad because it normalizes trans women participating in sports, thereby destroying women's sports at an undefined future date.

You know, like a conspiracy theorist would say.
i saw this. I figured Laurell would murder that catagory, but there is one thing i forgot to consider. She old as fuck.

Laurell is 43 years old, which is not old in the grand scheme of things, but for a power lifting athlete, that is fucking old as dirt. It should be noted that Laurell did have a overhead lift but didn't snatch properly and it was called a "no lift".

Going forward the Olympics are going to change the policy in regards to transgender athletes, though I don't understand enough of the hormone per nanoliter jargen to understand if they are tightening the restrictions or loosening them.

That being said, I still think there needs to be some athletic adjustments for trans-athletes in professional competition. Because we are seeing contests getting skewed heavily in regards to competing in a professional matter. Laurell has shattered several women's records for power lifting. Veronica Ivy has shattered records in women's cycling. I forget the name of the high school trans-girl who beat the shit out of her classmates in wrestling, actually it might have been college i forget exactly.

Point is, the trans community continues to claim that there is no evidence that been born a man gives you advantages when competing against natural women. But the evidence is in the results. When Laurell could not even place in power lifting competitions when she was still a man, then transitions at 35 years old, only to then compete against women and crush them. Did becoming a woman somehow give her the power to break world records? Or is it more likely that Laurell's 35 years of being a man made her bigger (far bigger look at her) and stronger than any of these women? It's not really hard to see.

I'm not saying that shouldn't be able to complete. Sure they can, at least in non-contact sports, but i also think there needs to be a rules comity that can study the offset of male-to-female advantage and handicap the athlete's accordingly. For example a trans woman on the golf course should have a different tee-off point, maybe not quite as far back as the men but somewhere between the men's tee and the women's tee to offset the built in strength advantage. Things of that nature.

So long as the competition can be adjusted in such a way to make it as fair as possible for the participants.