Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[tstorm823]

This paragraph is of course laden with qualifications and clarifications about Trump's level of involvement. None of which were present earlier for Clinton.

Had someone simply said "Trump paid Giuliani to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden"-- no added clarifications minimising the level of Trump's knowledge or involvement!-- you'd absolutely have regarded that as misleading at best and outright dishonest at worst on the question of Trump's own culpability. And you know you would've done. You spent so much time and effort making absolutely crystal clear that the actions of Trump's employees in service of Trump shouldn't be held against Trump.

The actions of your employees should be held against you. But you can't treat that as evidence of a plot ordered from the top.

If you find a need for clarification of a comment and receive that clarification in the conversation, just accept the clarification. If our roles were reversed right now, you'd be telling me how there is no possible way to read that sentence differently than you wrote it and you shouldn't need to clarify.

 

[Silvanus]

The actions of your employees should be held against you.

A dramatic shift in tone there.

If you find a need for clarification of a comment and receive that clarification in the conversation, just accept the clarification. If our roles were reversed right now, you'd be telling me how there is no possible way to read that sentence differently than you wrote it and you shouldn't need to clarify.

I wouldn't write that sentence in the first place unless I intended to speak about Trump's culpability. Because that's obviously what it indicates. On this I'm being perfectly consistent.

 

[Gergar12]

Neither does the fire brigade, should we defund that?



Citation needed.

The fire brigade doesn't fight only one gender's fires.

Gen X, and Baby Boomers overwhelming voted for economic, and keyword socially conservative policies like anti-abortion, and voted in conservative lawmakers that are actively harmful against woman.

Edit: Don't even get me started on healthcare, and economic issues.

 

[tstorm823]

On this I'm being perfectly consistent.

It's not a good consistency.

 

[Silvanus]

It's not a good consistency.

Remember you said recently that we all have 'tells'? This is a recognisable one of yours-- when you've run out of road, the retreat into meaningless one-line answers.

This is all obfuscation anyway. You know what the phrase "pay someone to X" means. You're pretending it can mean something completely inane to avoid admitting you made a specious allegation.

 

[tstorm823]

Remember you said recently that we all have 'tells'? This is a recognisable one of yours-- when you've run out of road, the retreat into meaningless one-line answers.

You have it quite backwards. I keep my responses short or don't respond at all when my opponent has defeated themselves and I no longer need to prove anything. When someone suggests they are so consistently superior as to never require clarification on their statements to reach understanding, I don't need to add a word.

 

[Gergar12]

More Canadians are moving to the U.S. Here's one of the main reasons, according to an immigration expert

Recent data from the U.S. census revealed that more than 126,000 people moved from Canada to the U.S. in 2022. An expert said that one of the main reasons for this move is the cost of living.

www.ctvnews.ca

Thank you Justin Trudeau for those new citizens. We will be coming for your country eventually too one day.

 

[Silvanus]

You have it quite backwards. I keep my responses short or don't respond at all when my opponent has defeated themselves and I no longer need to prove anything.

Claiming victory after failing to convince anybody of anything is another one.

When someone suggests they are so consistently superior as to never require clarification on their statements to reach understanding, I don't need to add a word.

That's not even close to what I said, and you know it.

You suggested that I'd take a different position 'if our roles were reversed', which implies you think I'd take an inconsistent approach to language depending on my own sympathies. It's entirely relevant and appropriate to point out that I've actually been consistent in how I use these words.

Recasting that as 'consistently superior' or 'never requiring clarification' is pathetic dishonesty.

 

[tstorm823]

Implies you think I'd take an inconsistent approach to language depending on my own sympathies.

It's not your sympathies, it's your self awareness. If you say something and I respond to my interpretation of it, you chastise for not diving your intended meaning. If I say something and you respond to your interpretation of it, you chastise me for the way you interpret it after further clarification.

Words can be read in different ways, it typically requires a back and forth the get a good understanding of a claim, that is a normal thing you should be able to engage with.

 

[Silvanus]

It's not your sympathies, it's your self awareness. If you say something and I respond to my interpretation of it, you chastise for not diving your intended meaning. If I say something and you respond to your interpretation of it, you chastise me for the way you interpret it after further clarification.

This obviously depends on how ambiguous the statement is, and what the realistic interpretations are. Someone cannot simply express something flagrantly false, and then when challenged, pretend they intended the words to be interpreted in a totally innocent & totally bizarre way.

Imagine I said of someone i dislike, "he's a thief, he steals things all the time". Then someone challenges me on it, pointing out i have no solid evidence of him stealing anything. And so I insist: "I meant 'thief' and 'steal' in the colloquial sense, as in he barters and acquires things legally at low cost! It's not my fault you misinterpreted it, just accept my clarification and move on!"

 

[tstorm823]

Imagine I said of someone i dislike, "he's a thief, he steals things all the time". Then someone challenges me on it, pointing out i have no solid evidence of him stealing anything. And so I insist: "I meant 'thief' and 'steal' in the colloquial sense, as in he barters and acquires things legally at low cost! It's not my fault you misinterpreted it, just accept my clarification and move on!"

If you feel someone clarified away any real meaning from their statement, you should accept their clarification and move on. From your perspective, you blew away their argument and left them with nothing just by letting it end there.

 

[Silvanus]

If you feel someone clarified away any real meaning from their statement, you should accept their clarification and move on. From your perspective, you blew away their argument and left them with nothing just by letting it end there.

Arguably-- but I don't think dishonesty should go uncommented.

 

[tstorm823]

Arguably-- but I don't think dishonesty should go uncommented.

That's just a "it's not enough that I succeed, my opponent's must fail" position. You're not longer content to win the point or get a concession, you require in your mind that the other person be painted a liar. And then you keep arguing points harder than necessary until you inevitably take a wrong position.

 

[Silvanus]

That's just a "it's not enough that I succeed, my opponent's must fail" position. You're not longer content to win the point or get a concession, you require in your mind that the other person be painted a liar. And then you keep arguing points harder than necessary until you inevitably take a wrong position.

Of course, you didn't concede anything-- you tried to mangle comprehensible English to fit what you'd said so you'd be right. I'd have been happy to drop it right then if you'd not chosen to defend it to the hilt.

 

[tstorm823]

Of course, you didn't concede anything-- you tried to mangle comprehensible English to fit what you'd said so you'd be right. I'd have been happy to drop it right then if you'd not chosen to defend it to the hilt.

So did I successfully defend the point to require your response, or did I dramatically change in tone and walk back the whole thing? You can see how responding in this case makes it look like you think it's the former.

 

[Silvanus]

So did I successfully defend the point to require your response, or did I dramatically change in tone and walk back the whole thing?

What a strange false binary. Neither. The fact that it elicited a response doesn't somehow mean it was convincingly defended.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

An anti-gun activism group (Change The Ref, an organization that “uses urban art and nonviolent creative confrontation to expose the disastrous effects of the mass shooting pandemic) sponsored a study on gun ownership and penis size dissatisfaction, expecting to scientifically prove that people who own guns are less satisfied by their penis size and buy guns to make up for their perceived lack of masculinity. Instead the study ended up finding the opposite, that gun owners are less likely to be dissatisfied with the size of their penis than non-gun owners, and that men who do not own guns are more likely to be dissatisfied by their penis size.

In this study, we formally examine the association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership in America. The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, asserts that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises will be more likely to personally own guns. To test this hypothesis, we used data collected from the 2023 Masculinity, Sexual Health, and Politics (MSHAP) survey, a national probability sample of 1,840 men, and regression analyses to model personal gun ownership as a function of penis size dissatisfaction, experiences with penis enlargement, social desirability, masculinity, body mass, mental health, and a range of sociodemographic characteristics. We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830

Fucking LOL.

 

[Gordon_4]

An anti-gun activism group (Change The Ref, an organization that “uses urban art and nonviolent creative confrontation to expose the disastrous effects of the mass shooting pandemic) sponsored a study on gun ownership and penis size dissatisfaction, expecting to scientifically prove that people who own guns are less satisfied by their penis size and buy guns to make up for their perceived lack of masculinity. Instead the study ended up finding the opposite, that gun owners are less likely to be dissatisfied with the size of their penis than non-gun owners, and that men who do not own guns are more likely to be dissatisfied by their penis size.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15579883241255830

Fucking LOL.

I'm no theologian but I feel there's some correlation here. Maybe a follow up study with those who didn't own and were dissatisfied about how they feel after buying and owning a firearm for like six months.

 

[Gergar12]

I am a visual, and kinesthetic learner, so I was bored and decided to look up intersectionality, when I read the Wikipedia article about Intersectionality, it came up with very strong foundations but lacked the visual representation, and quantitative analysis. One person yapping to me about how if you have one of X, you are likely going to be more oppressed isn't going to work. In business/careers, hiring is too simple, it's how you will market yourself with a score of 1 being bad, 100 being great and it being a 1D line things that can increase your score are your resume, networking, cultural fit, etc. in academia/college admissions it's too in the weeds with its holistic combined qualified analysis and quantitative analysis.

But I do like the Wikipedia article, and I love 3-D shapes. So in my mind, I sketched what a proper visual analysis of Intersectionality is.

Intersectionality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But the visual image looked crappy. A better visualization of it will be this. A 13-sided 3D tri-decahedron since there are 13 quantities in Intersectionality. It would also change shape depending on where you are at, and I would argue it should do so on a city-by-city basis, but I can see it doing so by nationality, state, zip code, or even combining some number of it.

Tridecahedron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, I used Chat-GPT 4o, and yes it sucks because I don't know how to do complex AutoCAD, but the idea is that some sides would increase and some would decrease depending on location. And then you fill the insides depending on how disadvantaged you are, and there is your social disadvantage score based on volume. Yes, this would require machine learning, but my Python skills can't do this yet.

Sadly most of the people who look at this would be academics and data people, and the bosses basically do basic race-based affirmative action analysis alongside how well you market yourself if you're in a larger company, or not even that. But it's a good theory I just don't have the tools to implement a visualization of it yet.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A 13-sided 3D tri-decahedron since there are 13 quantities in Intersectionality.

The wiki article gives 13 examples. Not the same thing.

But, putting that aside, trying to quantify this is very difficult. It's easy to see examples of prejudice, but giving numbers to them is another thing.