| Till Death Us Do Part. |
Internet Gaming "celebrities" and their racism (no Gladiators discussion) • Page 20
-
challenge_hanukkah 14,394 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 8 years ago -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoConcrete wrote:
Jeeeeeeesus H. Christ... Why is redpiller propaganda always so tackily put together? It's it an intentional ęsthetic in an attempted to appear grassroot and anti establishment?
On the subject of media fueled outrage, I highly recommend this series of two videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAodB1h_ozU&t=2486s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ9qyg17fnU
Be warned, she goes at a hell of a rate and some of the topics are pretty complicated, but its a fantastic deconstruction of previous examples in our history and is fully referenced.
MrTom will probably call her rude names in a minute.
Reminds me of those horrible cut and paste jobs that GG circulated.
Still, slightly less vile than the pseudo scientific shit Damore published.
Edited by Tonka at 15:54:07 20-09-2017 -
Daryoon 5,912 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 20 years agoHasn't Charlie Brooker done about a dozen shows on that by now? -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoConcrete wrote:
It's perfectly possible to be a female *and* an idiot. Alas, redpiller is not just liked to the subreddit of the same name. It's a better sounding name for the lite-right.
Ok I thought a redpiller was someone who hated women? So a female "redpiller" is .. someone who hates themselves? -
Skirlasvoud 4,039 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 11 years agoConcrete wrote:
How so?
I suspect she would destroy the average local on these forums in a debate (me included).
She has a strong conviction in her own world vision and knows how to define it in technical terms, but her logic and opinion isn't flawless.
Most of what she says is predicated and builds in steps upon assumptions, which are completely debatable. The house of cards is only sturdy if you're willing to accept the foundations it's build on for yourself.
Edited by Skirlasvoud at 18:15:03 20-09-2017 -
Skirlasvoud 4,039 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 11 years agoHey, as a research scientist myself, I love expert knowledge.
Quoting data and papers only get you so far though. I can still disagree with her correlation and conclusion, especially in the arena of a "soft-science" like sociology (and that's my own bias. People's feelings are harder to quantify than a temperature or a molecule). These references are not hard to string together into your own rambling narrative, like she does.
For example, I don't think her reference of the "Venona Project" observations on the red scare, are relevant in a post-social media society where the outside threat of the USSR has vanished.
And from there on, down the rabbit hole we go as a quote my own references that I hold important and find details to dismiss hers, like you'd do in any debate where people bring up science. By the end of the day there's such a torrent of data in any complex field of science with lots of variables, that there's still (sadly) plenty of room to be subjective with the puzzle pieces.
Needless to say, I'm less impressed. She's hardly un-debatable.
Edited by Skirlasvoud at 18:44:02 20-09-2017 -
JamboWayOh 25,236 posts
Seen 27 minutes ago
Registered 8 years agoYeah, I can see that. If you're not so well versed in that area then the person who you're debating against can appear intimidating. Regardless of the fact that their references and data could be skewed, or irrelevant to the argument, because on face value who are you to argue. It makes me think of someone like Bill Maher who has views that I pretty much disagree with, especially on race and religion. He's the kind of person who who couches all his opinions in complex and acceptable language but you cut through it and he reveals himself to be a pretty bigoted person. His casual use of the N word further strengthens this view.
Edited by JamboWayOh at 18:55:28 20-09-2017 -
Skirlasvoud 4,039 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 11 years agoI saw this article the other day where Swedish Schoolkids were being taught to think critically about the news they absorb. They were taught to ask themselves "Do other news sources confirm this?" "Who is the author" "Could this have been written with a subtext or hidden meaning?"
In a debate, the scientific principle works basically the same. You can use it as a first stepping stone to begin countering arguments, no matter how intimidating they seem. "Why was this reference picked?" "Are there alternative theories?" "How relevant is this to what was said?" "Have they accounted for other explanations for the same conclusion?"
I think both are CRUCIAL to learn this day and age, with all the information floating about on the internet and social media.
I also think these are skill a great many of the racist Youtube personalities we discuss here, and their fans, completely dismiss because they're too wrapped up WANTING to believe in their own bias.
It makes me hate preachers like JonTron or Sargon of Akkad with a vengeance.
All he'll do is fetch a bunch of articles or posits, then lace his opinion through it to tell a story. And if he used on or two articles, it must be science! And we blindly accept it because it reinforces our own world view! We're going to choose to accept this particular science.
Even TotalBiscuit does the same. He'll use a singular event, and then use that to prove himself right about all his other suspicions.
I'm not saying that I'm right instead. I'm just saying that blind faith in a bunch of difficult words or one or two prior events that support your own opinion is wrong. The basis of fact and science, is self-reflection and doubt. It comes when you exhausted all other explanations, rather than coming up with your own conclusion. That's what all those alt-right nutjob "red-pill" youtubers claiming to know the truth don't get while digging up the most obscure of papers and claims without even questioning their own narrative.
That's how the whole "Alternative Fact" and "Red-pill" dichotomy was born: A completely misunderstanding of how science works and how society reaches its conclusions.
Both left and right are guilty of it too, but I'd ESPECIALLY mistrust anyone out there claiming to have stumbled upon what's real and "saying it like it is" while working under the impression that there's a conspiracy keeping the truth away from people, like most of the edgy yokels do. They're just slaves to their own bias and bitterly holding onto it because they've tied their egos to it, and not their supposed rationality.
Edited by Skirlasvoud at 19:43:01 20-09-2017 -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoThere was a bit of discussion provoked by that written article you posted, just don't expect people to sit through a video lecture. -
JamboWayOh 25,236 posts
Seen 27 minutes ago
Registered 8 years agoConcrete wrote:
I personally don't believe people are scared, in fact I think people are more the opposite now. Everyone has an opinion, ironically myself included, that has taken the place of evidence. If I shout my opinion the loudest more people will listen and unfortunately as a result believe it to hold value.
Skirlasvoud wrote:
See, this is what I am looking for.
For example, I don't think her reference of the "Venona Project" observations on the red scare, are relevant in a post-social media society where the outside threat of the USSR has vanished.
Debate, discussion, people taking the time to explain why they feel or think a certain way, pointing out flaws or omissions in others point of view, not as a points scoring exercise but as an enjoyable learning experience for all those involved directly and all those who lurk.
Not simply immediately calling anyone who doesn't hold your exact beliefs a fucking idiot.
Maybe that makes me a troll, but I remember an internet where people enjoyed discussion (with a side order of good natured piss taking) but these days people are scared of getting their head bitten off, by all sides, all sides.
Edited by JamboWayOh at 20:25:06 20-09-2017 -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoConcrete wrote:
There's a page or two after that about GG and how it may have influenced the entire sphere of politics we find ourselves in currently. That all stemmed directly from a quote from that article.
The discussion was a selection of the regulars calling him variations of shit head.
So I guess the second tip is: if you want a specific kind of discussion on an article that's that kind of length, you may want to present something about it that's worth discussing. Throwing something out into a vacuum and expecting everyone to jump on it isn't really going to get what you're after. Personally I miss the days when posting something and just adding a /discuss at the end was met with lots of pictures of school gym equipment.
I mean, I did read it and everything but it's just the story of a guy who made a few leaps of logic that I find kinda silly, that's all. -
For me it's total lack of interest of jmillerworks' justifications as to why he's an utter shithead. I don't want to hear the mewling woe is mes of the cocksplat that once claimed to have invented the NotYourShield hashtag (he apparently didn't). There's no value in reading about why he thinks he became a shithead because it's everyone else's fault they made him this way. Ge was a vocal supporter of GamerGate and now he's aboard the alt-right/Trump bandwagon, so he's a shithead just like the rest of them, that's the important bit. -
Furthermore, considering how much he's lied in the past I seriously doubt his claim he was ever antifa. It's nearly 100% likely it's another lie for attention. -
JamboWayOh 25,236 posts
Seen 27 minutes ago
Registered 8 years agoConcrete wrote:
Honestly you mention the sonic vs Mario fan wars, but honestly I don't think humanity has come a long way. In fact the level of online debate pretty much mirrors its level of maturity. Hell, even the debate in real life is somewhat comparable.
JamboWayOh wrote:
Do you think that if volume of comment has replaced hard evidence as the way of enforcing 'truth' you are shouting as you feel its your duty?
I personally don't believe people are scared, in fact I think people are more the opposite now. Everyone has an opinion, ironically myself included, that has taken the place of evidence. If I shout my opinion the loudest more people will listen and unfortunately as a result believe it to hold value.
In effect fighting a never ending war against one or more opposing viewpoints to decide the reality we all co-inhabit.
I remember the Sonic VS Mario fan wars, humanity has come a long way. -
The "best" part is when the alt-right blew up in popularity and Trump won and the press were wringing their hands going "how could this have happened? It came out of nowhere!"
errr... No it didn't and we've all been warning about this for about a year and a half. All THAT time these outlets were running fluff pieces about the "dapper Richard Spencer" and "alt-right firebrand Milo". -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoConcrete wrote:
Honestly, it was a thing that happened a couple of years ago that was dissected to death. I know the story you're going to play out: it made me feel sad then, it makes me sad now and I can't be bothered with it*.
Will go through it shortly, for the record, I think GG acted as the blueprint for how media outlets can collude to sell a narrative.
* yeah yeah, I'll believe it when I see it as well -
Skirlasvoud 4,039 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 11 years agoSkirlasvoud wrote:
Holy mother of coincidence Batman!
All he'll do is fetch a bunch of articles or posits, then lace his opinion through it to tell a story...
They're just slaves to their own bias and bitterly holding onto it because they've tied their egos to it, and not their supposed rationality.
https://youtu.be/xIfc5Oo0hkc?t=3m16s
Edited by Skirlasvoud at 22:48:30 20-09-2017 -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoConcrete wrote:
Referencing science papers doesn't mean you're telling the truth. Usually these crackpots engage in heavy cherry picking and to make matters worse they rarely understand the papers they are referencing.
Well she's referencing research papers and studies that make up the bedrock that our understanding of the human psyche is built on to support her theories.
By the time someone points out all the errors the zeitgeist has moved on.
Take this neat takedown of Damores fail at referencing research papers That is what it takes to write a well grounded essay with references. Compare that to the sloppy copy paste job in the videos or Damores own ramblings.
I can kind of see why the redpillers stick to a frog burping memes, and agitated YouTubers.
Edited by Tonka at 07:20:15 21-09-2017 -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoIf you want to see someone rip the media appart just watch any interview with Chomsky on the topic. Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIG8s-e6dkM
For those that crave pretty pictures and cuts there are spiced up clips with soundtracks and everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBWfkE7BXU
Is it absolutely have to be crackpot copy paste bins then go to the grand daddy of them all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago -
Skirlasvoud 4,039 posts
Seen 4 months ago
Registered 11 years agoMr Near deGrasse Tyson for the win!
Edited by Skirlasvoud at 10:19:43 21-09-2017
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
