Scott Cawthon (FNaF guy) cancelled

[tstorm823]

The new Texas bill is a different sort of bill, and I want to sit down and actually read it before I comment too much on it. If you've got a specific part of it to draw my attention to, I'm interested.

Nah, it's pretty much the same as all the others. The only major difference is that they were planning on having an explicit list of required reading for how they'll teach about race and civil rights, and then decided not to do that and just listed a broad requirement instead. The really controversial part about this bill is that it's the same as the others in the end.

 

[Avnger]

One major reason I'm sceptical of this is that, at 6 months of age, babies aren't actually capable of knowing what they look like.

I feel like he's perhaps taking the idea that babies instinctively develop a preference for people in general or their caregivers (eg: human faces and their family/nurse/etc respectively) and misconstrued it for people like them.

 

[Trunkage]

It's not the world he lived in, you could argue the world now isn't the world he lived in either and has changed much and while yes we should work towards dealing with inequality the way to solve it isn't hyper focus on race all the time and it's not bringing back segregation as some of the "woke" talking heads have suggested in the past (and please don't make me provide the evidence for this one a I can provide it but I'd rather not have to post the nonsense here)

Provide all the evidence you. It could be hyper focused.

You're argument assumes that the 'old days' wasn't. That's not true. At all. I don't know if you heard, they had a big war over it

 

[Hawki]

The reason why people are so upset about this is that they can't separate the thing they like from the person that they don't and they have no clue how to cope with that.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but there is the question of separating the art and the artist.

But per the tweet itself, we live in a time where "words are violence" but also, "silence is violence." Which is odd, because I was under the understanding that violence was violence.

It's about poverty and local conditions you ding-dong. The race aspect is coincidental because of our fucked-up levels of racial segregation. It will stop being "inherent" when the poverty stops being a heritable trait.

I agree that poverty affects outcome. To use your earlier example, no-one's saying there's something inherently different about those Appalacian kids. No-one's saying there's something different about Latinos (who also do worse than the average). No-one's saying that there's something inherent about Asians which explains why they do better than all other groups. You can chart per capita income, and it'll correlate perfectly with educational attainment.

Like, you're making my argument for me. Poverty affects outcome, not inherent traits.

Yeah, probably. White people don't care about our own.

Well first, if there was any campaign to help those Appalacian kids based on skin colour, it would immediately be shot down (and to be frank, arguably rightly so - I'm not fond of identity politics in general, and I'm really not fond of white identity politics).

Second, it's nice of you to think that I'm a sociopath.

Personal judgement, honestly.
Because you can't quantity it.
Because the idea that you can quantify a person down to a number is bullshit.
Because meritocracy is a sham, and the sooner we stop lying to ourselves the better.

You know, I can imagine the PTA meeting with you explaining why your "personal judgement" is why you elevated Bobby over Billy, despite Bobby getting a worse mark.

If you're using "personal judgement" at all, that's a terrible way of evaluating someone, or a result. Since this topic has touched on stuff like racism and classism, I thought we'd have agreed that "personal judgement" is prone to all sorts of biases.

Yes, personal judgement will be required in a number of circumstances, but objectivity, or at least striving for objectivity, is a better method than personal judgement ever will be.

Except that's not what the laws are. The laws are about removing civil rights history as mandatory parts of the curriculum and monitoring teachers for wrongthink.

You might want to read teachers' letters written under conditions of anonymity for "wrongthink" as well, under CRT-inspired curiculums.

 

[Hawki]

One major reason I'm sceptical of this is that, at 6 months of age, babies aren't actually capable of knowing what they look like.

Well, it's not what studies have said.

Even then, type in "babies are racist" in a search engine, and you'll see the results.

Because again, they don't always align.

The most famous example would be the Clark doll experiment (although the Clarks actually did a whole bunch of similar experiments). If racism were motivated by in-group bias, then black children should assign positive value to dolls that have a similar skin and hair colour to them, but the experiment actually found the opposite, as has almost every experiment looking at racial bias in children. Black children replicate the negative associations and feelings about blackness that they encounter in their lives and the culture around them, and they do so at a developmentally crucial stage which informs their expectations of how they should be treated and how they should treat others. That is a racial bias.

I don't know exactly how that disproves the idea of racism being motivated by in-group bias. What you're describing seems to be internalized self-loathing. On the practical sense, in real life, the black children will show a preference for people who look like them, same as most groups - we (and by we, I mean all humans) tend to self-segregate. That isn't racism ipso facto, but it's a common factor.

Racism Stuff

I really can't be bothered to go through each of those examples. In fact, looking at them, I was reminded of all the examples I left out, and far more modern ones at that.

The idea that all of this can be attributed to "one system of thought" doesn't hold water, neither historically or contemporarily. Even if we say, for argument's sake, that racism is racism, and everything else that I'd call racism is really "racism-x," even if we get rid of all the "racism," that won't do a damn thing to get rid of the "racism-x."

..and assuming that is true (which is a stretch) why do you think they think that?

Don't give me some bollocks about "alternate ways of knowing" or some misquoted phrase you stole from a rantsona video. This is a specific claim, I want a specific answer. Why do these people think, definitively, that 2+2=5. That's a weird way to think, and I'm sure an open minded and intellectually curious person like yourself was fascinated to find out the reasoning behind it.

Well first, the idea of "alternate ways of knowing" was introduced to me through various online publications, and not ones you'd call fringe by any means. I'm all for "alternate ways of knowing" when they've been verified to work. For instance, firestick farming in Oz is a proven method of reducing bushfires, so go for it, definitely. On the other, you'll never get me replacing "sixty-thousand years" with "time immemorial" due to "the failed concept of linear time" (yes, that's an actual quote).

Second, if I had to guess why people said 2+2=5, I'd boil it down to the following:

1: Trolling, or to be more precise, "sticking it to the man"

2: Postmodernism, or at least, the idea of there being no objective truths (as we've seen on this thread), so therefore, any mathematical formula becomes valid.

3: A general decline in mathamatical proficiency (this is true in Australia, it's true as far as I'm aware in the US), and a strain of thought that has resulted in the lowering of maths standards rather than trying to increase proficiency. We've seen this in the US in various areas with the gutting of advanced maths (and other) courses, usually in response to them not representing some arbitrary representative demographic.

No, it's actually not.

I'm going to be very clear. I don't agree with what was said there, at least not in the immediate sense, but it's not racial determinism and I'm confused as to why, outside of intentionally hostile reading, you would assume that it is.

Believe it or not, it's not an intentional hostile reading. I've seen this strain of thought pop up in various places, including here.

Even if it isn't racial determinism, what do you think is the reason for disparate outcomes? I think culture can play a role, but would you agree that poverty is a reasonable explanation?

 

[Hawki]

I feel like he's perhaps taking the idea that babies instinctively develop a preference for people in general or their caregivers (eg: human faces and their family/nurse/etc respectively) and misconstrued it for people like them.

No, definitely "like them."

Even then, type in "babies are racist" in a search engine, and you'll see the strain of thought.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Provide all the evidence you. It could be hyper focused.

You're argument assumes that the 'old days' wasn't. That's not true. At all. I don't know if you heard, they had a big war over it

I meant it as in the world where a person can be judged on character wasn't the world he lived in as such.

As for evidence, I said please don't make me post it for a reason.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I agree that poverty affects outcome. To use your earlier example, no-one's saying there's something inherently different about those Appalacian kids. No-one's saying there's something different about Latinos (who also do worse than the average).

How wrong do you want to be today?

More US schools teach in English and Spanish, but not enough to help Latino kids

Classes taught in both languages help students from various backgrounds, but many districts have fought to keep Spanish out of schools.

www.usatoday.com

No-one's saying that there's something inherent about Asians which explains why they do better than all other groups.

Model minority is a myth

You can chart per capita income, and it'll correlate perfectly with educational attainment.

Like, you're making my argument for me. Poverty affects outcome, not inherent traits.

Poverty is a heritable trait. School districts are a heritable trait. That these heritable traits almost perfectly match with an ethnic grouping doesn't say anything good about this country and it doesn't say anything bad about said ethnic group.

Well first, if there was any campaign to help those Appalacian kids based on skin colour, it would immediately be shot down (and to be frank, arguably rightly so - I'm not fond of identity politics in general, and I'm really not fond of white identity politics).

Claims to hate identity politics, opposes new teaching methods for kids because the group being taught is predominately a specific identity. It's identity politics to have to erase an identity in order to be allowed to attempt to solve a problem.

Second, it's nice of you to think that I'm a sociopath.

If you couldn't tell, I'm white too. I just notice the suspicious timing of the complaints about police brutality and murder involving white people. It's a straight fact that white people don't turn out when cops kill a white dude for no reason.

You know, I can imagine the PTA meeting with you explaining why your "personal judgement" is why you elevated Bobby over Billy, despite Bobby getting a worse mark.

If you're using "personal judgement" at all, that's a terrible way of evaluating someone, or a result. Since this topic has touched on stuff like racism and classism, I thought we'd have agreed that "personal judgement" is prone to all sorts of biases.

Yes, personal judgement will be required in a number of circumstances, but objectivity, or at least striving for objectivity, is a better method than personal judgement ever will be.

It'sTheSamePicture.jpg
Humans have a worrying tendency to "trust the algorithm" without noticing that they've programmed in all their old biases. See also Credit Scores and HR algorithms.

Or is the rich kid with private school and tutors objectively more meritorious than the student working full time with a lower score? Nobles inherently better than peasants. You know, meritoriously.

You might want to read teachers' letters written under conditions of anonymity for "wrongthink" as well, under CRT-inspired curiculums.

Don't need to. It's the same "but they don't let me teach my personal bullshit as fact" letters that've been around for my entire life, usually written by some dude mad that he has to teach female students or can't teach that IQ is a real thing anymore. Boys who cried wolf and all that.
Not exactly the same thing as the government installing cameras to "guard against indoctrination".

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Prior to the newest Texas bill, all of the anti-CRT laws that had come up name some specific and pretty narrow ideas, tenets, or beliefs not to be taught, usually with more narrow language like that they can't be "compelled or directed to adopt or affirm" those tenets. Typically, the list includes that any race is inherently inferior to any other, that any race should be given worse treatment than another and that members of any race should feel guilt over the actions of other persons in the past because those persons were the same race.

If you haven't been paying attention, a law like that means that any Karen who gets mad when you point out that the Confederacy had slavery as a cornerstone of its existence gets to pull the school system into a long and costly legal battle over how they feel about it.

That's the problem.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

How wrong do you want to be today?

More US schools teach in English and Spanish, but not enough to help Latino kids

Classes taught in both languages help students from various backgrounds, but many districts have fought to keep Spanish out of schools.

www.usatoday.com

Ok I'm going to weigh in on this one because there's an actual reason for this issue.

You need teachers who can do it. I was told to try and embed a language I couldn't speak into lessons at one point and most of the time I managed good morning or good afternoon and that was it. I did really try with one lesson but it took 30 minutes with another trainee who was training to be a specific teacher in said language to get stuff for what was maybe 10 minutes of actual lesson time.

Literally where I was teaching generally they had the subject as a languages lesson each week and anyone who wanted to be taught only in said language you had to go to a specialist school hat taught just in that language. (It was Welsh)

To teach dual language lessons you also need more staff because generally the school schedule is such that teachers will be mostly booked up with lessons and their maybe 2 hours a week prep time free periods which can (and often do) get taken up by having to work cover for other teachers who are absent.

The best option would be just additional support English lessons because generally even very poor schools can afford staff to run support lessons and bonus it doesn't merely only help kids who speak Spanish but can help those who are just shit at English. Or to push for Spanish specific schools not merely try to push for regular lessons to be taught also in Spanish in regular schools.

 

[Hawki]

How wrong do you want to be today?

More US schools teach in English and Spanish, but not enough to help Latino kids

Classes taught in both languages help students from various backgrounds, but many districts have fought to keep Spanish out of schools.

www.usatoday.com

Yes, bilingualism helps educational outcomes. That's been known for awhile.

What does any of that have to do with the argument against inherent traits?

Model minority is a myth

Where did I talk about model minorities?

Plot per capita income between groups, and it corresponds to educational attainment.

Poverty is a heritable trait. School districts are a heritable trait. That these heritable traits almost perfectly match with an ethnic grouping doesn't say anything good about this country and it doesn't say anything bad about said ethnic group.

I said inherent, not heritable.

You...do understand the difference, right?

Claims to hate identity politics, opposes new teaching methods for kids because the group being taught is predominately a specific identity. It's identity politics to have to erase an identity in order to be allowed to attempt to solve a problem.

If identity politics is claiming that your group is inherently different from others, then that's going to raise a few eyebrows.

And I already said that if anyone tried this on the Appalacian kids, it would be equally eyebrow raising (to say the least).

Humans have a worrying tendency to "trust the algorithm" without noticing that they've programmed in all their old biases. See also Credit Scores and HR algorithms.

Or is the rich kid with private school and tutors objectively more meritorious than the student working full time with a lower score? Nobles inherently better than peasants. You know, meritoriously.

First, you still haven't given any alternative to meritocracy bar "personal judgement."

Second, I don't know if the rich kid is objectively more meritorious than the student working full time, but I can give them tests that are objective, or in stuff like essay writing, be as objective as possible in my evaluation of them.

Third, nobles aren't inherently better than peasants, but if I have a choice of who's going to run a piece of land - Sir Duncan of Essex, tutored by the finest scholars in the land, or Peter Nine-fingers, an illiterate man crippled by gout - guess who I'm going to pick?

Fourth, that you're even bringing up nobles and peasants belies your own point, that the societies we live in now have more social mobility than under feudalism. I've already stated that it's impossible to get a perfect meritocracy, but being as meritocratic as possible is better than the alternative of subjective judgement.

Don't need to. It's the same "but they don't let me teach my personal bullshit as fact" letters that've been around for my entire life, usually written by some dude mad that he has to teach female students or can't teach that IQ is a real thing anymore. Boys who cried wolf and all that.
Not exactly the same thing as the government installing cameras to "guard against indoctrination".

You can be opposed to both, by the way.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yes, bilingualism helps educational outcomes. That's been known for awhile.

What does any of that have to do with the argument against inherent traits?

Where did I talk about model minorities?

Plot per capita income between groups, and it corresponds to educational attainment.

I said inherent, not heritable.

You...do understand the difference, right?

Yes, which makes it frustrating when you are the only one saying these traits are inheritable

If identity politics is claiming that your group is inherently different from others, then that's going to raise a few eyebrows.

And I already said that if anyone tried this on the Appalacian kids, it would be equally eyebrow raising (to say the least).

Good thing nobody's doing that then

First, you still haven't given any alternative to meritocracy bar "personal judgement."

Second, I don't know if the rich kid is objectively more meritorious than the student working full time, but I can give them tests that are objective, or in stuff like essay writing, be as objective as possible in my evaluation of them.

Third, nobles aren't inherently better than peasants, but if I have a choice of who's going to run a piece of land - Sir Duncan of Essex, tutored by the finest scholars in the land, or Peter Nine-fingers, an illiterate man crippled by gout - guess who I'm going to pick?

Fourth, that you're even bringing up nobles and peasants belies your own point, that the societies we live in now have more social mobility than under feudalism. I've already stated that it's impossible to get a perfect meritocracy, but being as meritocratic as possible is better than the alternative of subjective judgement.

It's literally the same thing, you're just substituting an "objective test" for the divine right.
Either way you hit the snowball effect.

You can be opposed to both, by the way.

I mean, why would you want somebody who doesn't teach women or someone who thinks IQ is real and predictive teaching Black people?

 

[Trunkage]

I meant it as in the world where a person can be judged on character wasn't the world he lived in as such.

As for evidence, I said please don't make me post it for a reason.

I mean, there are lots of studies that have fallen on either side of the fence. Its similar to how chocolate both causes cancer and makes you healthy. That's the reality. I've read quiet a few of them and I'm personally undecided. I dont think there is any consensus. The only thing that tips me towards combining genders is my own personal philosophy of... combining everyone. Not any specifc data. That's good enough for me

How is this proving your point? That feminist are segregatist? Are we banning same sex schools now? Making a new law against them? Like, go ahead I guess.

Oh sorry, I forgot..... Oh DH. You got me with that irretraceable logic. Feminist are all so evil. This one feminist did something wrong, that means all feminist always do things wrong. All feminist are all segregatist. They hate all men. Oh they're destroying humanity.
.
.
That was sarcasm

 

[Hawki]

Yes, which makes it frustrating when you are the only one saying these traits are inheritable

I am not saying that language is inherent (inheritable, yes, not inherent), you're the one who's saying that I'm saying that.

Good thing nobody's doing that then

If only.

It's literally the same thing, you're just substituting an "objective test" for the divine right.
Either way you hit the snowball effect.

No, I'm not. That's absurd.

The divine right of kings is a system of lineage. As in, I have a divine right to rule because of God, ergo, my son will become king in my stead, and so on and so forth, and oh shit, is that a guillotine?

In contrast, I can give an objective test to anyone on a planet, and choose a winner. There's no inherent right as to who gets the top mark, or position, or whatever. Not everyone will have had the same life experiences leading up to the test, but it's damn more meritocratic than the idea that some people have an inherent right to take the throne.

And yes, snowball effect is real, I accept that. That's why we have systems in place to help the less fortunate, and progressive taxation. I've said multiple times that we can't live in a perfect meritocracy, and there's some measures we can take to help level the playing field, but that's not an inditement against meritocracy. Not unless your definition of meritocracy is where everyone is perfectly equal in every way, all of the time.

This isn't even just an academic thing. A paralympian isn't going to be able to compete with an olympian in most cases. That isn't an inditement against the Paralympics.

I mean, why would you want somebody who doesn't teach women or someone who thinks IQ is real and predictive teaching Black people?

Sorry, who's not teaching women?

And, wait, are you saying that IQ isn't real, and isn't predictive? That's um...quite a stretch.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I mean, there are lots of studies that have fallen on either side of the fence. Its similar to how chocolate both causes cancer and makes you healthy. That's the reality. I've read quiet a few of them and I'm personally undecided. I dont think there is any consensus. The only thing that tips me towards combining genders is my own personal philosophy of... combining everyone. Not any specifc data. That's good enough for me

How is this proving your point? That feminist are segregatist? Are we banning same sex schools now? Making a new law against them? Like, go ahead I guess.

Oh sorry, I forgot..... Oh DH. You got me with that irretraceable logic. Feminist are all so evil. This one feminist did something wrong, that means all feminist always do things wrong. All feminist are all segregatist. They hate all men. Oh they're destroying humanity.
.
.
That was sarcasm

I said some woke talking heads has been suggesting bringing back segregation.
I said please don't make me post the evidence of this.
You said to post it.
I did.
I never made any comment about group beyond woke talking heads.

We've seen the push for this stuff with the "Black Only" spaces etc too.

 

[Hawki]

A Straightforward Primer On Critical Race Theory (and Why It Matters)

CRT’s critics are often portrayed as wanting to “whitewash” history and deny the reality of slavery. If the problem were that simple, the criticisms would indeed be worthy of the dismissal they often receive.

www.forbes.com

Usually I try to avoid using articles to make my points for me, but this pretty much encapsulates my thoughts on the matter.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I am not saying that language is inherent (inheritable, yes, not inherent), you're the one who's saying that I'm saying that.

If only.

Then who is, if neither of us are?

No, I'm not. That's absurd.

The divine right of kings is a system of lineage. As in, I have a divine right to rule because of God, ergo, my son will become king in my stead, and so on and so forth, and oh shit, is that a guillotine?

In contrast, I can give an objective test to anyone on a planet, and choose a winner. There's no inherent right as to who gets the top mark, or position, or whatever. Not everyone will have had the same life experiences leading up to the test, but it's damn more meritocratic than the idea that some people have an inherent right to take the throne.

And yes, snowball effect is real, I accept that. That's why we have systems in place to help the less fortunate, and progressive taxation. I've said multiple times that we can't live in a perfect meritocracy, and there's some measures we can take to help level the playing field, but that's not an inditement against meritocracy. Not unless your definition of meritocracy is where everyone is perfectly equal in every way, all of the time.

This isn't even just an academic thing. A paralympian isn't going to be able to compete with an olympian in most cases. That isn't an inditement against the Paralympics.

So who's more meritorious, the Olympian or the Paralympian?

And, wait, are you saying that IQ isn't real, and isn't predictive? That's um...quite a stretch.

It is quite literally fake
It's falsified data, massaged numbers, biased tests, and racist hoaxes all the way down. Time stamps and sources in the description, there's a lot of bullshit to wade through.
EDIT: sorry for the length, I couldn't find somebody calling you racist for 4 minutes and claiming it was a debunk.

 

[Hawki]

Then who is, if neither of us are?

No-one was. You're the one who brought language into this.

So who's more meritorious, the Olympian or the Paralympian?

In the strictest sense, almost certainly the Olympians. If you're pitching people with a physical disability against those without, the ones without are almost certainly going to win. That's why you don't get Olympians taking part in the Paralympics and vice versa (maybe there's some exception somewhere, I dunno).

If you want to gauge who's more meritocratic in a comparative sense, then that may be possible, but it's academic, since they're separate events. They're two different 'tests.' And even if the Paralympian does better comparatively than the Olympian, they're still not going to be able to do a lot of things that the Olympian can.

It is quite literally fake
It's falsified data, massaged numbers, biased tests, and racist hoaxes all the way down. Time stamps and sources in the description, there's a lot of bullshit to wade through.
EDIT: sorry for the length, I couldn't find somebody calling you racist for 4 minutes and claiming it was a debunk.

I'm a racist for saying IQ exists. Um, okay...

First, that video refers to the Bell Curve. I'm not talking about the Bell Curve, I'm talking about IQ, which was conceptualized well before the Bell Curve was published. That IQ has been used poorly in the past doesn't invalidate it. You yourself brought up vaccine hoaxes, IIRC.

Second, I'm not watching a video that's 2 hours and 40 minutes long. Call that a win if you want, but I draw the line there. If there's a publication that debunks the entire idea of IQ, I'm sure you can find it from a source outside a talking skull.

Third, I'm aware of the issues with IQ tests...

Do IQ Tests Actually Measure Intelligence?

The assessments have been around for over 100 years. Experts say they’ve been plagued by bias, but still have some merit.

www.discovermagazine.com

But they absolutely have predictive possibility...

The Validity of IQ – The Alternative Hypothesis

thealternativehypothesis.org

And can be both adversely and positively affected by environment.

Children raised in greener areas have higher IQ, study finds

Research also found lower levels of difficult behaviour in rich and poor neighbourhoods

www.theguardian.com

Air pollution causes ‘huge’ reduction in intelligence, study reveals

Impact of high levels of toxic air ‘is equivalent to having lost a year of education’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'm a racist for saying IQ exists. Um, okay...

First, that video refers to the Bell Curve. I'm not talking about the Bell Curve, I'm talking about IQ

Can you guess what the Bell Curve is about?

 

[Hawki]

Can you guess what the Bell Curve is about?

I know what the Bell Curve is about. The Bell Curve posits that there's a link between IQ and race, hence the curve (i.e. based on what race you belong to, you're either further to the left or the right of the curve.

Believe it or not, you can discuss IQ without referencing The Bell Curve.