/wave
Not religiously but from time to time. Why do you ask?
“Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one.” Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, the Sarloth Sar School of Nation Building.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Anne Hathaway denounces white privilege in award speech
speaking to the ladies, gentlemen and “gentlethem” in the crowd, Hathaway denounced white, straight and cisgender privilege.
“It is important to acknowledge with the exception of being a cisgender male, everything about how I was born has put me at the current center of a damaging and widely-accepted myth,” she said.
“That myth is that gayness orbits around straightness, transgender orbits around cisgender, and that all races orbit around whiteness.”
Hathaway explained that it was when she spent time with the LGBTQ community – her older brother is gay – that she learned to reject this myth.
“I appreciate this community because together we are not going to just question this myth, we are going to destroy it,” she told the crowd.
“Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one.”
I did not know you were in to Buddhism! :bjarte:TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑“Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one.” Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, the Sarloth Sar School of Nation Building.Pol Pot2.jpgMatt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Anne Hathaway denounces white privilege in award speech
speaking to the ladies, gentlemen and “gentlethem” in the crowd, Hathaway denounced white, straight and cisgender privilege.
“It is important to acknowledge with the exception of being a cisgender male, everything about how I was born has put me at the current center of a damaging and widely-accepted myth,” she said.
“That myth is that gayness orbits around straightness, transgender orbits around cisgender, and that all races orbit around whiteness.”
Hathaway explained that it was when she spent time with the LGBTQ community – her older brother is gay – that she learned to reject this myth.
“I appreciate this community because together we are not going to just question this myth, we are going to destroy it,” she told the crowd.
“Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one.”
Against Mencius Moldbug’s ‘Neoreaction’
;-)Reading Moldbug is like listening to somebody who informs you of his plan to take care of the termites by burning his mansion down and then starts romanticizing life in a log cabin despite never having lived in one.
:lol: :lol: :lol:The move covers about 20 pages of the warrant obtained to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and FBI interviews.
All the usual suspects are absolutely pissed about thisAndrewV69 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:06 pmTheEmpire, Golden Golem of Orange, Bull in a China ShopDonald has struck again :
(The link again) In stunning move, Trump declassifies documents related to Russia probe:lol: :lol: :lol:The move covers about 20 pages of the warrant obtained to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and FBI interviews.
This is why the completely racialized narrative is actually counterproductive.dogen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pmClearly, those cops are racist white supremacists.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b2d4fd6/turb ... 50/750x422
(From this story). To be honest, it's not surprising that cops in Baltimore are majority-black. But the BLM narrative, of white supremacy driving the cop-on-black killings, has quite a few problems with it.
Interestingly enough, The Shield was inspired by the real life Rampart scandal.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ I hadn't heard about that case. It's kinda funny really. It's basically the plot from the TV show The Shield. In fact, those morons probably came up with the idea for their scam by watching The Shield.
Since he mentions dead children, Peezy seems to have conflated Tamir Rice with the adult drug dealers in Baltimore.
I sometimes think that Stalin must be rolling over in his grave that Orwell gets all the credit for '1984'.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d
Breaking the Norm
written by Jamie Kilstein
Norm Macdonald became famous as a comic who said offensive things. From blatantly calling O.J. Simpson a murderer on Saturday Night Live, to a Conan appearance where he talked about oral sex with his wife who was in a coma. We loved it. He was one of the most beloved comedians of all time and a comic’s comic. I even went back to watch that Conan clip taped in “liberal Hollywood” after a girlfriend sent it to me and noticed that the crowd went nuts. Coma sex and all.
Norm Macdonald was also just booted from The Tonight Show for… saying offensive things.
That dude tried so hard to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Even with cameras in their fucking faces these “Aussies” couldn’t withstand the subtlest of scratches. Islam is totally ingrained into their base identity, it’s not a thought system to be reviewed and revised away apart from a few outliers. Or a system that will accommodate the lessons of John Locke civic lessons 101 and the theory of social contract.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d
They're just defending their Chinese cultural heritage of being a high trust society :bjarte:The mandatory “social credit” system was first announced in 2014 in a bid to reinforce the notion that “keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful,” according to a government document.
More seriously: yes, this is concerning. With tech like this, authoritarian regimes might have a hedge that they didn't have back in the 1930s. This is why keeping authoritarian forces at bay is important.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d
I’ll bet you $5 that for the West, social scorecards will happen in what passes for liberal democracies well before we get this:Kirbmarc wrote: ↑More seriously: yes, this is concerning. With tech like this, authoritarian regimes might have a hedge that they didn't have back in the 1930s. This is why keeping authoritarian forces at bay is important.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
[img.]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d[/img]
Racism is really a side issue. Culture is the major factor in US racial inequities. First generation PoC in the US are far more successful than Afro Americans and successive generations tend to fail to the degree that they integrate into mainstream black culture. IMO, if I've read you correctly, you tend to put the cart before the horse when it comes to the causal relationship between culture and civic values/governance. The major failure of SocJus is that it mis-identifies the causes of inequality and utterly fractures society in the attempt to hammer square pegs into round holes. Legislative solutions need to be colour blind, focussing on disadvantage regardless of colour, as that might be able to lift people up by addressing the root causes without racial sensibilities getting in the way.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:58 pmThis is why the completely racialized narrative is actually counterproductive.dogen wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:57 pmClearly, those cops are racist white supremacists.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5b2d4fd6/turb ... 50/750x422
(From this story). To be honest, it's not surprising that cops in Baltimore are majority-black. But the BLM narrative, of white supremacy driving the cop-on-black killings, has quite a few problems with it.
Law enforcement misconduct exists in the US, and it's an issue that is a recurring problem. There's a culture of tribalism and lack of accountability among American law enforcement officers, which helps corrupt or violent officers to get away with their crimes. The victims of law enforcement misconduct are likely to be involved in the criminal underground to some level, or living in areas where crime is diffused, or to be poor and so unable to cause legal trouble for police officers. Police is also more active in urban areas.
Due to a series of socio-economic factors this usually means that a large part of the victims of questionable or criminal police conduct are black. There's also a long, painful history of racism in the United States, and of course racism is far from over. So I understand WHY the completely racialized narrative has taken hold. The problem is that by adopting a completely racialized narrative you're approaching the problem with at best a bias towards reinforcing your narrative.
But it's actually relatively easy to find examples when it's hard to argue that racial factors were an issue.
There are many issues with the American justice system which are more about lack of accountability for officers and prosecutors, the system screwing over poor, disenfranchised people, violations of civil rights being excused or glossed over (like in the cases of civil forfeiture), the failures and excesses of the War on Drugs, private prisons, over-reliance on questionable witness statements, over-incarceration, overly draconian punishments, a system which doesn't offer much in terms of rehabilitation, lack of opportunities for people who have served their sentences, overly strict interpretation of laws (like prosecuting teenagers as sexual offender for having consensual sex with other teens), etc.
And yes, the effects of a flawed system which is more about filling prisons and getting votes for being "tough on crime" than about protecting people's rights and reducing crime, and of law enforcement officials covering their asses are disproportionately felt by those who can't hire good lawyers, can't afford class actions, aren't interviewed by the papers and live in areas which politicians deem unworthy of their attention. Everywhere in the world this means poor people, especially those who live in areas with high levels of crime. In the US this means that there's a visible racial component to those issues. Denying this would be dumb. But the racial narrative isn't, and shouldn't be thought of as, the end of everything.
But the SJWs for the most part don't seem to care about those issues. In some cases (like the infamous college kangaroo courts) the SocJus actually actively makes things WORSE in the name of "absolute justice". I've seen lots of libertarians caring more about the rights of the accused than most SJWs, or caring more about reducing the powers of prosecutors and law enforcement officers than most SJWs.
Kamala Harris, a SocJus darling, is very "tough on crime", very much pro-Drug War, and very much in favor of maintaining and expanding the power of prosecutors. The SocJus is really "tough" on any allegation of sexual misconduct, to the point of some SocJus fans dismissing presumption of innocence as "nonsense".
I remember when I had a discussion with a Pharyngula fan about how making law enforcement less militarized might reduce police shootings, and the reply was along the lines that he didn't care about law enforcement being militarized as long as they stopped "killing black people". :bjarte:
By focusing ONLY on the racial aspects the SocJus risks actually DELAYING police reforms, by turning them into a politically identitarian issue and a performative social media and protest act.
Both the SocJus and the alt-right would be delighted to have social scorecards, if they were the ones in change of the score.Brive1987 wrote: ↑I’ll bet you $5 that for the West, social scorecards will happen in what passes for liberal democracies well before we get this:Kirbmarc wrote: ↑More seriously: yes, this is concerning. With tech like this, authoritarian regimes might have a hedge that they didn't have back in the 1930s. This is why keeping authoritarian forces at bay is important.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
[img.]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d[/img]
I think that wealth and education level of parents and peers has also lot to do with sub-cultural differences.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑ Racism is really a side issue. Culture is the major factor in US racial inequities. First generation PoC in the US are far more successful than Afro Americans and successive generations tend to fail to the degree that they integrate into mainstream black culture.
There's a feedback process between the two. Cultures promote laws and institutions that create situations which shape cultures and sub-cultures. Talking about one without the other doesn't make much sense, and changing cultures is a long process, which is started by pushing for institutional changes.IMO, if I've read you correctly, you tend to put the cart before the horse when it comes to the causal relationship between culture and civic values/governance.
I agree that institutional solutions need to be color blind, and aimed at fixing concrete, definable issues rather "teaching people how not be racist". Addressing racial sensibilities needs to be done within the color-blind frame, acknowledging race disparities but pointing at common solutions, not through identitarian lenses. But of course that's not very rewarding electorally.The major failure of SocJus is that it mis-identifies the causes of inequality and utterly fractures society in the attempt to hammer square pegs into round holes. Legislative solutions need to be colour blind, focussing on disadvantage regardless of colour, as that might be able to lift people up by addressing the root causes without racial sensibilities getting in the way.
That's wonderfully clever. Seeing how social media has turned us all into occupants of a Skinner Box, pecking away compulsively for likes (I read once the description 'Facebook has weaponized our serotonin levels for commercial gain'), the clever, clever Chinese follow through logically. Not just social media is about 'likes' anymore - it's your whole life. And these likes don't just make you feel good, they give you an advantage in a very competitive society. You get ahead by conforming. Wait for v.2.0, already though beta in the pre-digital era, where you can inflict downvotes on your competition by snitching on them. They really do deserve to take over the planet, and I hope I'm not around to see what it looks like.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d
I really hate the fact that I know the politics of these Hollywood cunts. I have a lot of respect for Hathaway's performance in Les Mis. She was one of the few standouts (as was Redmane). Now, every time I see her on film I will be reminded of what a commie twat she is. This happens so often now it is pissing me off.TheMudbrooker wrote: ↑“Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one.” Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, the Sarloth Sar School of Nation Building.Pol Pot2.jpgMatt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ Anne Hathaway denounces white privilege in award speech
speaking to the ladies, gentlemen and “gentlethem” in the crowd, Hathaway denounced white, straight and cisgender privilege.
“It is important to acknowledge with the exception of being a cisgender male, everything about how I was born has put me at the current center of a damaging and widely-accepted myth,” she said.
“That myth is that gayness orbits around straightness, transgender orbits around cisgender, and that all races orbit around whiteness.”
Hathaway explained that it was when she spent time with the LGBTQ community – her older brother is gay – that she learned to reject this myth.
“I appreciate this community because together we are not going to just question this myth, we are going to destroy it,” she told the crowd.
“Let’s tear this world apart and build a better one.”
Amazing that this useless hulk can get a TV show made of her drivel.Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑
I predict now that sharp reporters will discover this show is opposed by nazis, sexists, white supremacists, homophobes and haters.
Because he told the chicken who crossed the road he wouldn't.shoutinghorse wrote: ↑ Why didn't the sheik want to show his face? :violence-blades:
It's all bullshit. Facial recognition software could never work in China because they all look alike. :rimshot:Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d
From what is already publicly known about Carter Page there is plenty of reason for his being investigated. From Wikipedia:Guest_b8931fdb wrote: ↑All the usual suspects are absolutely pissed about thisAndrewV69 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:06 pmTheEmpire, Golden Golem of Orange, Bull in a China ShopDonald has struck again :
(The link again) In stunning move, Trump declassifies documents related to Russia probe:lol: :lol: :lol:The move covers about 20 pages of the warrant obtained to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and FBI interviews.
I see one of three things happening:
1. It's clear that there are secrets there that Trump should have not have declassified, if so, a terrible look for Trump, especially before midterms
2. It's clear that there are secrets there that do not put the US at risk if they are declassified, if so, a poor look for the usual suspects
3. It's a big nothing burger, if so, a poor look for the usual suspects
As soon as someone published them, we will know immediately.
Releasing these documents should shed a ton of light on the claims that the FBI and FISA court abused the FISA warrant process.
It's hard for me to understand at this point, in this particular case, how declassifying this material does anything but aid the public, but we shall see!
As noted, he already had a FISA warrant issued to investigate him in 2014, well before Trump announced his run for office. This is a publicity stunt by Trump to try and cast suspicion on the legal process and if and when there is no improper action discovered he will claim there was and his gullible supporters and his gang of stooges at Fox News and the House will lap it up like a cat with a bowl of catnip laced milk.In 1998, Page joined the Eurasia Group, a strategy consulting firm, but left three months later. In 2017, Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer recalled on his Twitter feed that Page's strong pro-Russian stance was "not a good fit" for the firm and that Page was its "most wackadoodle" alumnus.[21] Stephen Sestanovich later described Page's foreign-policy views as having "an edgy Putinist resentment" and a sympathy to Russian leader Vladimir Putin's criticisms of the United States.[2] Over time, Page became increasingly critical of United States foreign policy toward Russia, and more supportive of Putin, with a United States official describing Page as "a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did".[4] Page is frequently quoted by Russian state television, where he is presented as a "famous American economist".[3]
In August 2013, Page wrote, "Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda."[22] Page described his role differently in 2018: "I sat in on some meetings, but to call me an advisor is way over the top."[23] Also in 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and one described him as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an "idiot".[2][20] News accounts in 2017 indicated that because of these ties to Russia, Page had been the subject of a warrant pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2014, at least two years earlier than was indicated in the stories concerning his role in the 2016 Presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[24][2
Doesn't that just prove you are not an AI?free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑It's all bullshit. Facial recognition software could never work in China because they all look alike. :rimshot:Brive1987 wrote: ↑ If even 10% of this true, we are living in a pastel “Black Mirror” episode.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/onli ... ec3dc98abf
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... MoVMyhS22d
> I hadn't heard of Ms Gadsby either outside the Pit, but she chimes in with a nonsensical tweet:screwtape wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:39 amIs 'Hate the sin, but love the sinner' a concept beyond acceptance these days? I've never heard of this comedian, but he seems to have been damned for simply expressing sympathy towards a couple of people stripped of personhood for their wrongthink. I hadn't heard of Ms Gadsby either outside the Pit, but she chimes in with a nonsensical tweet:
Screen Shot 2018-09-18 at 4.32.32 PM.png
Presumably she implies there is a world in which people such as herself have only heard of others when they have commented about them. That seems to be the triply-distilled essence of narcissistic solipsism. Let us not make her head explode by asking how she had heard of those she has commented upon. We must be kind to the weak and feeble.
“There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day,” said Macdonald, referring to C.K. and Barr. “Of course, people will go, ‘What about the victims?’ But you know what? The victims didn’t have to go through that.”
> I hadn't heard of Ms Gadsby either outside the Pit, but she chimes in with a nonsensical tweet:screwtape wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:39 amIs 'Hate the sin, but love the sinner' a concept beyond acceptance these days? I've never heard of this comedian, but he seems to have been damned for simply expressing sympathy towards a couple of people stripped of personhood for their wrongthink. I hadn't heard of Ms Gadsby either outside the Pit, but she chimes in with a nonsensical tweet:
Screen Shot 2018-09-18 at 4.32.32 PM.png
Presumably she implies there is a world in which people such as herself have only heard of others when they have commented about them. That seems to be the triply-distilled essence of narcissistic solipsism. Let us not make her head explode by asking how she had heard of those she has commented upon. We must be kind to the weak and feeble.
“There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day,” said Macdonald, referring to C.K. and Barr. “Of course, people will go, ‘What about the victims?’ But you know what? The victims didn’t have to go through that.”
I did. Yesterday. Why you no thank me for responding to your question on ANZAC?
Responses are flowing.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Interesting 50 odd page report from the data society on Alternative Influences on YouTube and the altright.
https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uplo ... luence.pdf
She sidesteps the issue of mixing everybody not SJW into “far right” by focusing on a web of guest appearances (which apparently removes any need for individual distinctions). She is also strongly pitching for YouTube’s culpability for the altrights existance and the requirement for censorship.
All dressed up in an academic-lite structure with pages of endnotes and the mandatory thank you to the supportive family.
[IM..G]http://i.imgur.com/IOdg2Tv.jpg[/IMG]
Id appreciate it if someone could explain her colour comment about “closeness”. I assume she just counted the lines?
Poor Gad Saad did not make the cut. I don't see him on the chart.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Interesting 50 odd page report from the data society on Alternative Influences on YouTube and the altright.
https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uplo ... luence.pdf
She sidesteps the issue of mixing everybody not SJW into “far right” by focusing on a web of guest appearances (which apparently removes any need for individual distinctions). She is also strongly pitching for YouTube’s culpability for the altrights existance and the requirement for censorship.
All dressed up in an academic-lite structure with pages of endnotes and the mandatory thank you to the supportive family.
http://i.imgur.com/IOdg2Tv.jpg
Id appreciate it if someone could explain her colour comment about “closeness”. I assume she just counted the lines?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzMjGbSoTj4Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: ↑ Oh, for fuck's sake!!! Shirtless Jesus again?!?
Either Brive has a crush on this guy or thinks that this weirdo is some kind of guru. Puzzling. :think:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: ↑ Oh, for fuck's sake!!! Shirtless Jesus again?!?
It’s like Jadehawk redux.Driftless wrote: ↑Poor Gad Saad did not make the cut. I don't see him on the chart.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Interesting 50 odd page report from the data society on Alternative Influences on YouTube and the altright.
https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uplo ... luence.pdf
She sidesteps the issue of mixing everybody not SJW into “far right” by focusing on a web of guest appearances (which apparently removes any need for individual distinctions). She is also strongly pitching for YouTube’s culpability for the altrights existance and the requirement for censorship.
All dressed up in an academic-lite structure with pages of endnotes and the mandatory thank you to the supportive family.
[IMG]h..ttp://i.imgur.com/IOdg2Tv.jpg[/IMG]
Id appreciate it if someone could explain her colour comment about “closeness”. I assume she just counted the lines?
http://i.imgur.com/tZK06h7.jpgfree thoughtpolice wrote: ↑Either Brive has a crush on this guy or thinks that this weirdo is some kind of guru. Puzzling. :think:Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: ↑ Oh, for fuck's sake!!! Shirtless Jesus again?!?