[Previous] Written and Unwritten Rules In Discussions | Home | [Next] Discussions Should Use Sources

Open Discussion 2 (2019)

Discuss whatever.

If you post a link or quote, express an opinion about it, ask a question, say something. Also, if you think something is bad and are posting it for criticism, say so – the default expectation is you agree with, and have a positive opinion of, whatever you post. Or if it seems good to you but you're sharing it because you have doubts and want to find out if people have criticism, say that.

Elliot Temple on November 6, 2019

Messages (30 of 284) (Show All Comments)


The chance of picking a value above the median for {1,2,3} is 1/3. (The median is 2. Out of the three equally likely numbers, only one (3) is above the median.)

My first "at least" should have been "at most". I realized this before I saw your reply, but I was away from my computer until just now.

jordancurve at 9:01 PM on May 21, 2020 | #16562 | reply | quote

#16562 His math relied on the exactly 50% claim. If it was "at most" 50%, then the actual result would be the same or better. But because you're now changing it to at least, his argument doesn't work. Did you notice that? He can't claim 93.75% (or better). His conclusion is wrong and it looks non-trivial to salvage some weaker conclusion.

curi at 9:40 PM on May 21, 2020 | #16563 | reply | quote

#16563 Wait I didn't reread the problem. You lose if you get 5 values below the median or 5 above. So if the odds are skewed in either direction (even symmetrically, which they aren't) you're worse off. He was relying on *exactly* 50% which is ridiculous.

I think the way to salvage this is to stop claiming the median is in between the top and bottom values randomly picked. Instead, say the medium is likely at least the bottom value and at most the top value. The chance of picking a value that is the median *or higher* (or lower) is >= 50%. So then you can get a > 93.75% conclusion out of it.

Also, according to wikipedia the term "median" isn't even well-defined in general:


> If there is an even number of observations, then there is no single middle value; the median is then *usually* defined to be the mean of the two middle values. [my emphasis]

Hubbard's book is a good example of overreaching. He's publishing about issues he's incompetent at thinking through.

curi at 9:49 PM on May 21, 2020 | #16564 | reply | quote

excerpt from VDH's "Carnage and Culture" book regarding the greek idea of freedom:

> All that being said, the Greeks who rammed the enemy head-on at Salamis believed that freedom (eleutheria) had proved to be the real key to their victory. Freedom, they believed, had made their warriors qualitatively better fighters than the Persians—or any other unfree tribe, people, or state to the west as well as east—breeding in them a superior morale and greater incentive to kill the enemy. Aeschylus and Herodotus are clear on this. While we are not so interested in their respective descriptions of Persian customs and motivations, which are often secondhand and can be biased, both authors are believable in reflecting what the Greeks believed was at stake at Salamis.

> The moral drawn by Herodotus, for example, is unmistakable: free citizens are better warriors, since they fight for themselves, their families and property, not for kings, aristocrats, or priests. They accept a greater degree of discipline than either coerced or hired soldiers. After Marathon (490 B.C.), Herodotus makes the point that the Athenians fought much better under their newly won democracy than during the long reign of the Peisistratid tyrants: “As long as the Athenians were ruled by a despotic government, they had no better success at war than any of their neighbors. Once the yoke was flung off, they proved the finest fighters in the world.” Herodotus explains why this is so: in the past “they battled less than their best because they were working for a master; but as free men each individual person wanted to achieve something for himself” (5.78).

> When asked why the Greeks did not come to terms with Persia at the outset, the Spartan envoys tell Hydarnes, the military commander of the Western provinces, that the reason is freedom:

> Hydarnes, the advice you give us does not arise from a full knowledge of our situation. You are knowledgeable about only one half of what is involved; the other half is a blank to you. The reason is that you understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or not. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too. (Herodotus 7.135)

Anonymous at 10:47 AM on May 27, 2020 | #16582 | reply | quote

bypassing discord message length limit

You asked me for an example of one of your errors (error from my pov), one of the things which is failing tests in my intellectual test suite. I gave the example where you said trees are too linear. When we tried to discuss that example, most of your messages also failed my test suite. The issue hasn’t been resolved (so far) and the secondary test failures (sub issues) mostly haven’t been resolved either.

What should be done about a situation like this (which is commonplace and should be expected)? How can progress be made?

Answer: *Exponential back off in search of common ground.* Try to find some set of standard, basic concepts that we can communicate about with a low test suite failure rate for both of us. Talk about simpler more basic stuff to whatever extent is needed that most of your messages pass my test suite and most of my messages pass your test suite.

Back off towards the lowest common denominator to find common ground.

Note: Only tests relevant to current goals should be run. In this case, the main goal is to understand each other. So you can say something I disagree with, and if I understand it and I think communication is successful, then that’s good, that’s a success. If we’re communicating successfully about what our claims are, that’s a good place to start.

The sort of tests in my suite that are failing are not e.g. “Contradicts a nuance of Popperian epistemology”. I mean, sure there are some test failures like that, but I don’t regard them as relevant so I’m not counting or talking about them. My focus is on tests I think are appropriate, and that’s where the failures I’m talking about are. Appropriate, relevant tests cover issues like clarity, logicalness, responsiveness, and non-ambitious cultural defaults about what is reasonably expected, at minimum, in an intellectual conversation.

Roughly: I’m just running the minimal test suite that I think is needed for a successful conversation. And I’m still getting a barrage of test failures.

We’re not on the same page about our discussion. It’s not close. Discussion is currently failing to the point that we don’t seem to be making progress on one relatively narrow, simple issue.

Some people have different strategies for how to deal with such things. They want to gloss over “pedantic” details and say a bunch of complicated stuff and hope to be e.g. 50% understood and to catch e.g. 50% of what the other guy says. They want to focus more on the stuff they like and expect the other person to do the same. Instead of saying “that message failed 2 of my tests” you say “i like one piece of that message. if i ignore the rest, and transplant it into my worldview, it can be interesting”. I think this approach is common and clashes with the approach of trying to find common ground. Instead of getting on the same page, people communicate in a lossy way and just put up with the vagueness and try to find things they like in it and focus on the positive.

Maybe this strategy is tempting to you? Maybe you agree with it? Maybe you’ve come to partially accept it without realizing what it is? Maybe you agree with the common ground approach and assumed I didn’t. idk.

I think error correction and problem solving are crucial, and the goal needs to be to find a way to get those working and then expand on what works. But most people in general seem to have basically given up on that and try to ignore the errors and problems to focus on some partial successes.

This is a reasonably well known issue. I am not alone in advocating the strategy I do (of seeking common ground to build on). Others have written about it in other ways, e.g.: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance

Does the common ground seeking strategy make sense to you? Want to try to do it?

curi at 11:11 AM on May 29, 2020 | #16589 | reply | quote

Twitter trend: "BLACK OWNED"

"BLACK OWNED" is trending on Twitter. (Note: I believe Twitter only allows and encourages certain terms to trend). The featured tweets using this phrase seem to consist mainly of people chastising rioters for destroying/looting black-owned businesses. I think the implication is that it's OK to target businesses owned by non-blacks.

Alisa at 11:33 AM on May 30, 2020 | #16593 | reply | quote

https://twitter.com/BukitBF/status/1267319697768357890 (http://archive.is/zfkRt)

Example of left-wing organization successfully raising money to bail rioters out of jail (from 2020-05-31):

> Sat AM we had 6 ppl on waitlist awaiting bail support. We were too depleted $ wise to post bail then. One person had been awaiting support since early May.

> THANKS TO YOU, since then, we’ve posted $20,000, securing freedom for 3 of them (2 @ $5k, 1 @ $10k, below).

> #FreeThemAll

Anonymous at 10:28 PM on May 31, 2020 | #16595 | reply | quote

Tucker: Our leaders dither as our cities burn

Tucker Carlson Tonight (2020-06-01): Our leaders dither as our cities burn

Historic monologue by Tucker. At times, it's as if he's addressing all of America; at other times, it's seems as if he's talking directly to President Trump. If Trump follows Tucker's advice - and I pray that he does - it might just save our country.

Alisa at 7:12 PM on June 1, 2020 | #16598 | reply | quote

Sines v. Kessler

Sines v. Kessler is a lawsuit that "targets key organizers and participants" of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, NC. According to VDARE, the rally's peaceful right-wing participants were assaulted by Antifa and endangered by the police.

In the interest of justice, lawsuits should instead be filed against the organizers of the #BlackLivesMatter riots.

Anonymous at 6:48 PM on June 2, 2020 | #16601 | reply | quote

A test for "peaceful" protests

Organizers of rallies/protests/demonstrations typically give lip service to intending that the event be peaceful. One test of whether such an event is *actually* peaceful is whether you can freely exercise the rights you would normally have in public without being assaulted by the other participants. These rights include, but are not limited to, filming other participants, representing a conservative media outlet, and wearing a MAGA hat.

Anonymous at 7:00 PM on June 2, 2020 | #16602 | reply | quote

#16602 Another right to test: holding an American flag.

Anonymous at 7:21 PM on June 2, 2020 | #16603 | reply | quote

#16603 Try holding a sign that says “It’s OK to be white” or “all lives matter”

Anonymous at 5:46 AM on June 3, 2020 | #16604 | reply | quote

“Twitter, do your thing”

On 2020-05-05, Paul Joseph Watson published a video stating that the phrase “Twitter, do your thing” is being used as a call to harass & dox minors on Twitter.

On Telegram today, Michelle Malkin linked to a Twitter thread containing multiple examples of that:

> If you’re a teen and you disagree with the riots, they are doxxing you. There’s thousands of us here on telegram btw, many with twitter accounts. Report this to twitter as it violates their rules on doxxing. https://twitter.com/yeojnl/status/1268220755994607617?s=21

Anonymous at 5:58 PM on June 3, 2020 | #16607 | reply | quote

The Cultural Revolution: A People's History

On May 5, 2016, Frank Dikotter spoke with NPR about his book "The Cultural Revolution: A People's History". Here are some quotes (Audio + Transcript):

> Students, Red Guards in particular, first turned their attention towards any public display of the so-called old world. They vandalized shops. They turned over street signs with names that come from the past or invoke a feudal culture. They will vandalize churches, tear down temples, overturn tombstones, burn books in public - massive bonfires.

We see similarly targeted vandalism and destruction in the Black Lives Matter riots and the accompanying removal of historic statues.

> But also, bit by bit, they start raiding homes of people suspected of still having sympathies for the old regime - of playing piano, of reading bourgeois literature, of harboring capitalist thoughts.

Maybe raiding individual homes of people with "White Privilege" is next.

> ... very quickly, violence starts assuming quite extraordinary proportions.


> [Mao] relishes a game in which he can change the rules constantly. He improvises bending and breaking millions of people along the way.

Like Mao, the left in the U.S. changes the rules constantly. One example: Due to coronavirus and lockdowns, you can't visit your father who's dying in the hospital and states ban all large gatherings. Simultaneously, thousands can gather in public if they say it's for Black Lives Matter while nurses stand in the streets to cheer them on.

> ... the young people who turned themselves into Red Guards at the height of the summer 1966 probably believed that there was something in communism and something in the Cultural Revolution that was worthwhile pursuing. But I think that for most people who would've lived through the 1950s, they would have been very well aware of the dangers of not going along with the flow. In other words, let me put this simply. If you have to attend an indoctrination class week in, week out from 1949 onwards, it will not take you very long to realize that it is in your own interest to just pretend that you're willing to go along.

> In short, I think that already by the mid-1950s, most people in China - and in other one-party states for that matter - after a couple of years, people become great actors. They know what to say, they know that they have to say it and they know how to say it. It doesn't necessarily mean that they believe it. In other words, I think that even at the height of the Cultural Revolution, with the exception possibly of young students, many ordinary people would've given no more than a sign of outward compliance.

> They would've kept their innermost thoughts to themselves. They'd have been very, very careful to just play the part that they were asked to play without necessarily believing in it.

I bet there's a lot of preference falsification in America these days. For instance, Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, contrary to the predictions of almost every poll. One interpretation of this is that people revealed in the ballot box the pro-Trump preferences they were too afraid to tell the pollsters.

Anonymous at 9:57 PM on June 4, 2020 | #16614 | reply | quote


> > But also, bit by bit, they start raiding homes of people suspected of still having sympathies for the old regime - of playing piano, of reading bourgeois literature, of harboring capitalist thoughts.


> Maybe raiding individual homes of people with "White Privilege" is next.

Maybe in a few / isolated cases. But for it to be widespread in USA they'd have to confiscate the guns first.

If the second amendment is successfully repealed (in fact, whether or not in law) then raiding individual homes might become common.

Andy Dufresne at 7:43 AM on June 5, 2020 | #16615 | reply | quote

Anarchist video discourages less-violent protestors from stopping more-violent ones

sub.Media, an "anarchist video collective", tweeted a 2 min 20 s video today that discourages "peaceful protestors" from intervening to stop violent ones:

> It seems like every time there are mass protests we have to make a video debunking the #GoodProtester #BadProtester divisiveness that serves to keep us fighting each other instead of those in power. Well here is the latest...

> #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd #ACAB #FUCK12 #BlackLivesMatter

(Note: ACAB stands for *all cops are bastards* and fuck 12 means *fuck the police*.)

The video tries to make violent aggression against police seem morally justified. At 00:02:04, it says:



That text is accompanied by a version of this chart (both versions seem to have the same numbers, but the colors and layout differ):

Number of people killed by U.S. police on each day in 2019

However, not all killings are murders. The video is dishonest.

Anonymous at 10:27 PM on June 6, 2020 | #16621 | reply | quote

excerpt from Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage and Culture" on Reason and War


> People from the Stone Age onward have always engaged in some form of scientific activity designed to enhance organized warfare. But beginning with the Greeks, Western culture has shown a singular propensity to think abstractly, to debate knowledge freely apart from religion and politics, and to devise ways of adapting theoretical breakthroughs for practical use, through the marriage of freedom and capitalism. The result has been a constant increase in the technical ability of Western armies to kill their adversaries. Is it not odd that Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, medieval knights, Byzantine fleets, Renaissance foot soldiers, Mediterranean galleys, and Western harquebusiers were usually equipped with greater destructive power than their adversaries? Even the capture or purchase of Western arms is no guarantee of technological parity—as the Ottomans, Indians, and Chinese learned—inasmuch as European weaponry is an evolving phenomenon, ensuring obsolescence almost simultaneously with the creation of new arms. Creativity has never been a European monopoly, much less intellectual brilliance. Rather, the West’s willingness to craft superior weapons is just as often predicated on its unmatched ability to borrow, adopt, and steal ideas without regard to the social, religious, or political changes that new technology often brings—as the incorporation of and improvement on the trireme, Roman gladius, astrolabe, and gunpowder attest.

> Scholars are correct to point out that Europeans neither invented firearms nor enjoyed a monopoly in their use. But they must acknowledge that the ability to fabricate and distribute firearms on a wide scale and to improve their lethality was unique to Europe. From the introduction of gunpowder in the fourteenth century to the present day, all major improvements in firearms—the matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, smokeless powder, rifle barrel, minié ball, repeating rifle, and machine gun—have taken place in the West or under Western auspices. As a general rule, Europeans did not employ or import Ottoman or Chinese guns, and they did not pattern their technique of munitions production on Asian or African designs.

> This idea of continual innovation and improvement in the use of technology is embodied in Aristotle’s dictum in his Metaphysics that prior philosophers’ theories contribute to a sort of ongoing aggregate of Greek knowledge. In the Physics (204B) he admits, “In the case of all discoveries, the results of previous labors that have been handed down from others have been advanced bit by bit by those who have taken them on.” Western technological development is largely an outgrowth of empirical research, the acquisition of knowledge through sense perception, the observation and testing of phenomena, and the recording of such data so that factual information itself is timeless, increasing and becoming more accurate through the collective criticism and modification of the ages. That there were an Aristotle, Xenophon, and Aeneas Tacticus at the beginning of Western culture and not anything comparable in the New World explains why centuries later a Cortés could fabricate cannon and gunpowder in the New World, while the Aztecs could not use the Spanish artillery they captured, why for centuries the lethal potential of the land around Tenochtitlán was untapped, but was mined for its gunpowder and ores within months after the Spanish arrival.

> Western technological superiority is not merely a result of the military renaissance of the sixteenth century or an accident of history, much less the result of natural resources, but predicated on an age-old method of investigation, a peculiar mentality that dates back to the Greeks and not earlier. Although the theoretical mathematician Archimedes purportedly snapped that “the whole trade of engineering was sordid and ignoble, and every sort of art that lends itself to mere use and profit,” his machines— cranes and a purported huge reflective glass heat ray—delayed the capture of Syracuse for two years. The Roman navy in the First Punic War not only copied Greek and Carthaginian designs but went on to ensure their victories by the use of innovative improvements such as the corvus, a sort of derrick that lifted enemy ships right out of the water. Long before American B-29s dropped napalm over Tokyo, the Byzantines sprayed through brass tubes compressed blasts of Greek fire, a secret concoction of naphtha, sulfur, and quicklime that like its modern counterpart kept burning even when doused with water.

> Military knowledge was also abstract and published, not just empirical. Western military manuals from Aelian (Taktike theoria) and Vegetius (Epitoma rei militaris) to the great handbooks on ballistics and tactics of the sixteenth century (e.g., Luigi Collado’s Practica manual de artiglierra [1586] or Justus Lipsius’s De militia Romana [1595–96]) incorporate firsthand knowledge and abstract theoretical investigation into practical advice. In contrast, the most brilliant of Chinese and Islamic military works are far more ambitious and holistic texts, and thus less pragmatic as actual blueprints for killing, embedded with religion, politics, or philosophy and replete with illusions and axioms from Allah to the yin and the yang, hot and cold, one and many.

> Courage on the battlefield is a human characteristic. But the ability to craft weapons through mass production to offset such bravery is a cultural phenomenon. Cortés, like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Don Juan of Austria, and other Western captains, often annihilated without mercy their numerically superior foes, not because their own soldiers were necessarily better in war, but because their traditions of free inquiry, rationalism, and science most surely were.

Anonymous at 11:30 AM on June 7, 2020 | #16626 | reply | quote

> This idea of continual innovation and improvement in the use of technology is embodied in Aristotle’s dictum in his Metaphysics that prior philosophers’ theories contribute to a sort of ongoing aggregate of Greek knowledge.

This is so foundational to our society and its productive activities, yet so many people think they can be an intellectual without bothering to read and find out what previous intellectuals came up with.

curi at 11:58 AM on June 7, 2020 | #16627 | reply | quote

Alan Blog Reply


> In the world’s it exists now,

typo, missing “as”

What does Bruenig want? That we vote on all uses of all property every time it’s to be used? But if we assigned property initially by vote, and then had a system of private property, that’d be unacceptable to him, so we have to vote every time, billions of times per day? So maybe temporary property, like vote every year and redistribute everything then?

I mean redistribute whatever’s left of the property you give people while telling them that, no matter how well they take care of it, they can’t keep it next year anyway. Or maybe they will get social credit points for caring well for the property they are voted to be temporary user of, which voters are then encouraged or forcibly required to take into account at the next vote?

Or if not voting, what? Voting seems to be one of the few things people think is fair and not an initiation of force even if a majority may vote to, say, form a police squad that forcibly oppresses some minority. But if even voting is force, and he hates force, what does he want us to do? Nothing, ever? We can’t use anything? Or we can use anything by like first come first serve with some rules about what is a forcible taking and what is just grabbing it when the other guy sets it down (without intending to use it again for some time period?) which is fine?

curi at 2:33 PM on June 11, 2020 | #16671 | reply | quote

Smooth Sanchez

Smooth Sanchez is a YouTuber. As a prank, he recently got a number of individual New Yorkers to kneel on camera and apologize for their "white privilege": https://twitter.com/CAPSLOCKHUSTLER/status/1268887315218345985/photo/1 . Ann Coulter follows his Twitter account.

Here's a lightly edited transcript of one of his recent interactions:

> Smooth Sanchez walks up behind woman.

> Sanchez: Excuse me. Hey, I work for Black Lives Matter.

> Woman: [Turns to Sanchez, appears startled.]

> Sanchez: I'm sorry. I work for Black Lives Matter. I'm sorry that I scared you, but since I work for that company, my CEO has told me to come out today and to bring you on your knees, because you have white privilege. So if they see that a white person is getting on their knees, that shows solidarity for the situation.

> Woman kneels.

> Sanchez: And could you just please apologize for your white privilege?

> Woman nods, apparently thinking.

> Sanchez: Just apologize?

> Woman: Yeah, I'm trying to think of the right words to say. It's a big thing... to say.

> Sanchez: It's big.

> Woman: I want it to come from [indicates her heart].

> Sanchez: It's so large in this country.

> Woman: I'm incredibly sorry that...

> Sanchez: You know with this country, we have that president, Donald Duck, that clown, in office? He's brought a lot of bigotry, you know, and you're not a part of it, right?

> Woman: No. [unintelligible]

> Sanchez: And so, you know...

> Woman stands up.

> Woman: Thank you for letting me have a moment [unintelligible].

> Sanchez: Ok. You have a great day.

Sanchez sometimes acts as if Black Lives Matter is a company he works for. Sometimes he talks about George Foreman instead of George Floyd.

I think a big part of why people comply with Sanchez is that they are scared. They are afraid that a mob will cancel them if they do the wrong thing on video.

Alisa at 9:27 PM on June 11, 2020 | #16674 | reply | quote

Anarcho-communists and Black Lives Matter

Anarcho-communists disagree with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) doctrines of *white allies* and *intersectionality*.

Another Word for White Ally is Coward is a communist anarchist critique of the *white ally* concept:

> To be a White Ally is to stop thinking for one’s self, to blindly follow a leader based on no other criteria than their identity. At least this is what is demanded of us by those who would make us into Allies.

> The concept of the White Ally is bankrupt. One cannot be an ally to a category of people. To speak the words “I am a White Ally to people of color” is to commit an act of double speak, to internalize non-sense. There is no singular black voice that can be listened to, no authentic community leadership which to follow. There are only many different people with different ideas, life experiences and perspectives. To think otherwise, to think that all black people share a common opinion is extremely problematic, one might even say racist...

With Allies Like These is a communist anarchist critique of the concept of *intersectionality*:

> Intersectionality is often evoked in a manner that isolates and reifies social categories without adequately drawing attention to common ground. Crucial to its analysis is an emphasis on a politics of difference—it is asserted that our identities and social locations necessarily differentiate us from those who do not share those identities and social locations. So, for example, a working class queer woman will not have the same experiences and by extension, the same interests as an affluent woman who is straight. Similarly, a cis-man of colour will not have the same experiences and by extension the same interests as a trans* man of colour, and so on and so forth. Within this framework, difference is the fundamental unit of analysis and that which proceeds and defines identity. This practice works to isolate and sever connections between people in that it places all of its emphasis on differentiation.

> ... in focusing only on difference we lose sight of the fact that both are exploited under capitalism, and have a shared interest in organizing to challenge Capital.

> As class struggle anarchists then we identify the class struggle as one against this “double dependence” as we struggle against the conditions which are necessary for capitalism to reproduce itself.

> ... we must strive for a class struggle which directs us towards the abolition of the divisions within our class that are necessary to uphold capitalism.

My take: anarcho-communists want to tear down Western civilization. They don't care about BLM per se, though they have some goals in common with BLM, including abolishing the police.

As far as I can tell, the main thing that BLM-related rallies offer anarcho-communists is the opportunity to instigate, encourage, and contribute to chaos and destruction:

- https://itsgoingdown.org/the-world-is-ours-the-minneapolis-uprising-in-five-acts

- https://crimethinc.com/2019/08/09/looting-back-an-account-of-the-ferguson-uprising

Alisa at 7:13 PM on June 13, 2020 | #16690 | reply | quote

Double standards

Tucker Carlson, *Tucker Carlson Tonight* (2020-06-18):

> And then the Black Lives Matter riots started, and we learned that it was all fake. The very same officials who threatened us with arrest for going outside urged their own voters to flood the streets. And they did, and no one was punished. How could this happen? It was such a flagrant double standard. Not even hidden, right in your face. They didn't try to explain it. They didn't bother to justify it. Why? Anyone familiar with totalitarian regimes can tell you exactly why and what's going on…

For some time now, double standards have struck me as a serious issue, and yet it seemed an inappropriately weak kind of moral condemnation to merely state that someone has double standards. After watching the above clip, I now think that double standards:

- are a sign of the *arbitrary exercise of power*

- promote the *rule of man* over of the *rule of law*

- are *totalitarian*

People who promote double standards in public policy are totalitarians.

Alisa at 8:23 PM on June 18, 2020 | #16732 | reply | quote

J. D. Vance, *Tucker Carlson Tonight* (2020-06-18):

> One of the weirdest things, you know, people on the left right now act like they're on the side of the oppressed. They like to think that they're standing up for the little guy, they're standing up for working people, but on every single one of these major issues, you look at the big Supreme Court cases that have come down the line the past few days, you look at what's happening with the protests, you look at the actual goals of the protests as they've been stated, [e.g.] abolish the police — if you look at public policy polling, 70% of black Americans actually like their local police department. How is it that on all of these big debates, the left finds itself on the side of corporate America, finds itself on the side of international businesses?

> You know, if I was a member of a political movement that stood up for working people and found myself every single time on the side of Amazon, on the side of Apple, on the side of Google, I might ask myself if I've actually chosen the right allies and what it says about me...

Anonymous at 8:29 PM on June 18, 2020 | #16733 | reply | quote

Number of generations for Americans to abolish slavery

In the DHFC-BlitzBook video at around 1m50s, David Horowitz says:

> Once the United States was created with its Declaration that all men are created equal and have a right to liberty, it took one generation for Americans to abolish slavery at the cost of 350,000 Union lives.

The United States Declaration of Independence was signed and ratified in 1776. The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was ratified in 1865. Almost 90 years passed between those two events. A generation is generally considered to be around 25-30 years, so it took more than one generation for Americans to abolish slavery.

Alisa at 9:32 PM on June 25, 2020 | #16784 | reply | quote

In Tucker Calls Out the Absolute Fact That Trump is on the Path to Perdition (June 26, 2020), Andrew Anglin writes:

> These people are engaging in these attacks on our statues and burning down buildings on live television. The Justice Department is doing nothing. They are outright refusing.

> The House Freedom Caucus went on TV on Thursday and begged Barr to enforce the law – they read out laws that he could be enforcing! As if people don’t know that tearing down statues on federal and state property and arson are felonies! As if the Attorney General doesn’t know that! He needs to be reminded that it’s illegal, the weasel!

> The Freedom Caucus did a very good job, given the circumstances. They were all almost speechless, trying to explain the enormity of the insanity, and being forced to go out and publicly demand that the Attorney General of the United States prosecute a violent Marxist revolutionary mob that has overtaken the entire country.

> The city cops cannot do anything. City cops are being charged with murder for doing something. No one can expect them to do anything. Trump has to send in the feds. The FBI has teams to deal with this. All you need to do is round up the leaders of who are organizing these riots and statue pull-downs. Prosecute them, this will stop, Trump can claim total victory and campaign on having ended the chaos.

> But of course, Barr is not going to do that. If he was going to do that, he would have done it already. There is no reason he would wait a month before he started prosecuting a violent Marxist mob that is literally tearing down the country.

Anonymous at 12:49 AM on June 27, 2020 | #16793 | reply | quote

Andrew Anglin on women as programmers and engineers

In Twitter has Become Unusable (June 24, 2020), Andrew Anglin writes (among other things) about women programmers and engineers:

> On some level, [women computer programmers] are only pretending to be pretending to be men, given that they remain overwhelmingly preoccupied with looking cute while doing their big man jobs.

> How long does this woman spend doing her hair and makeup before going into the office and sitting at a computer?

>The average for women is 1 hour in front of the mirror in the morning (I’m sure it’s what that woman spends and she may spend more than that). Men are more or less incapable of grasping this level of vanity and self-absorption. Men will typically look for any excuse to grow a beard, so as to skip any form of morning grooming at all. They will also look for any excuse to wear a t-shirt and jeans, simply because it is so much faster to put on such clothing.

> Computer programmers are especially known for having beards and dressing overly casually.

> This probably stems from the fact that the morning hours are crucial to someone doing that kind of thinking.

Anonymous at 12:59 AM on June 27, 2020 | #16795 | reply | quote

In Trump Could Have at Least Avoided Having This Picture Taken After the Failed Rally (June 22, 2020), Andrew Anglin makes some interesting points about Trump's lack of action to quell the riots:

> The blacks who will vote for [Trump] are going to vote for him specifically because he doesn’t tolerate black riots and revolution. That is to say, what he is doing by refusing to address the black revolution is going to make it less likely that the blacks who do support him are going to bother voting.

> The staggering thing is that this is a self-inflicted wound. Maybe he can’t do anything. The military refused to defend the White House during peak riot, so it is unlikely he can really do much on that front. Maybe he can’t get AG Barr to prosecute the rioters. Maybe there is literally nothing he can do to stop any of it. But what he can do is what we know he can do, which is tweet and go on shows talking about it. He could be out there every single day denouncing the blacks, and calling this a hoax, saying it doesn’t really have anything to do with black people and that it’s just a communist revolution using the dumb criminal blacks as a tool.

> He was very loudly talking about “socialism” as a threat to “capitalism” throughout 2019, apparently as an election strategy. But now we have a full-on Bolshevik revolution, a direct attack on the very foundations of our entire civilization, and he’s doing what? He’s saying he’s going to reform the police and he’s honoring Juneteenth.

Anonymous at 1:14 AM on June 27, 2020 | #16796 | reply | quote


> The Golden Age of the Internet Is Over

curi at 8:00 PM on July 3, 2020 | #16842 | reply | quote

The Appleseed Project

Appleseed is a project to promote and teach rifle marksmanship as a living American tradition. To this end, they hold beginner-friendly rifle clinics across the country. The Appleseed standard of accuracy is to reliably hit a man-sized target at 500 yards, a distance which was once apparently known as the "rifleman's quarter-mile".

Seems like a worthy endeavor.

Fred's Forefathers at 7:24 PM on July 4, 2020 | #16848 | reply | quote

OXO Good Grips 3-in-1 Avocado Slicer

The OXO Good Grips 3-in-1 Avocado Slicer is a useful 3-in-1 tool for prepping avocados. It has:

1. An edge long enough to cut the unpeeled avocado in half. For safety, the edge is dull, kind of like the edge of a butter knife.

2. A three-part metal attachment that sticks into the core. Lets you easily pull the core out whichever half of the avocado its in.

3. A slicer — again, with a dulled edge for safety — that you drag through each half of the core-less avocado. This removes the peel from that avocado half and slices the half into 7 pieces at the same time.

Anonymous at 8:07 PM on July 5, 2020 | #16849 | reply | quote

(This is an unmoderated discussion forum. Discussion info.)