“Censored” awkwardly suggests government involvement, which nobody
is claiming.
This is a fun sentence after the president has announced today that
he will create a commission to remove “toxic propaganda, ideological
poison” from school curriculum.
Now that 1619 has been cancelled, I expect the entire ineffectual dork web to have Ida Bae Wells on their podcasts. Just like I expect them to speak up about Barr's illiberal theocratic views...
> the president has announced today that he will create a commission to remove "toxic propaganda, ideological poison" from school curriculum.
So he's going to create a political correctness commission for public education? I'm sure the irony isn't lost on conservatives at all.
“it’s actually good when the president orders that anyone who thinks
slavery happened be murdered in the street, because it protects free
speech” - scott whoever, high iq thinker
I read a little bit, and he completely lost me shortly after
mentioning this
Current Affairs article. The topic of this post is whether
the huge audiences and massive popularity of right wing pundits
undercuts their cries of silencing and censorship, and he quotes
Current Affairs rattling off a whole litany of right wing
celebs, noting the relative dearth of their left wing counterparts, and
making exactly the point he’s trying to dispute.
Then, in response, he says that an idea having a lot of famous
advocates doesn’t mean it’s popular or well-liked? What does that have
to do with whether the idea is being silenced or not? Am I missing
something? I wanted to call this “slick” or a “sleight of hand”, but it
honestly seems more like a scaly strong-armed robbery at gunpoint!
If his
audience’s self-reported IQ scores really are accurate, they’re the
strongest evidence against the meaningfulness of IQ as a metric anyone
could ever hope for.
Yeah, it seems to me he is very opportunistically switching between describing ideas as "taboo," "unpopular," "controversial," "marginalized," "unorthodox," (and the like) while hoping the reader fully glosses over the differences in meaning between these terms.
I am really skeptical that this many people took actual IQ tests. Actual tests are long, cumbersome and are usually not administered without a good reason, like if you're a problem child or want to join the French Foreign Legion lol
they were actually administered to my whole class in 3rd grade, probably to figure out which kids needed to go to the AIG (Academically Intellectually Gifted) classes and which kids needed remedial classes
but ydah i bet a lot of those people are ballparking, and the grass is probably pretty green in their ballparks
yeah, my school district in the US IQ tested everyone in the 2nd/3rd grade. it was pretty fucked in hindsight. imagine being shunted into the “slow track” for your entire k-12 education because you had to pee really bad during a long test when you were like 9
yes and no. they're both school, you get an equivalent diploma at the end, you eat lunch together, same idea. but if you're shunted into a "gifted track" early, you get better teachers, those classes have better opportunities, the school gives them more funding, etc, which means you're more likely to do better in school over the long run. speaking anecdotally; I remember from my high school that "slow track" classes (non-honors or AP) were visited by Army recruiters and "gifted track" classes (AP, IB, some honors) were visited by college admissions programs. it's that kind of thing. it's possible for someone shunted into the "slow track" to make their way into better classes, but it usually doesn't happen without *exceptional* academic performance or bothersome parents. and it's hard to perform exceptionally when your class is 34 students and your teacher's overworked and your textbook's falling apart, and it's hard to get your parents to bother the administration when they have two jobs. plus, you're a literal child, and many parents don't know that the administration will cave if you badger them enough.
Narcissism is more common than claimed IQ scores, and narcissists lie about IQs... now if only there was some kind of formula that one could use on probabilities like this... Maybe some monk came up with something a few centuries ago.
I vaguely remember this post and was debating whether I’d care to go
through it again. After a bit I did open it and lasted until the second
paragraph and the phrase “careful and important thinkers like Eric
Weinstein”.
Yes. I assumed that must be joke, and then read a bit further and apparently not.
Isn’t the fundamental issue to do with various sorts of ‘gatekeepers’, whether to recognition and respect, or to particular platforms?
“I’ve got loads of friends, but I want that popular kid there, and that really smart kid there to be my friends, and it’s NOT FAIR if they aren’t.”
I thought some of the analysis was interesting, but I couldn’t get
past the part where he took Bari Weiss’s stories of how hard it is to be
an IDW thinker at face value. She’s someone who’s routinely tried to get
people fired or deplatformed for criticizing Israel.
Wait are you here to defend Scotty’s honor on a sub *specifically* dedicated to mocking the ‘rationalism’ of him and his ilk?
You see the problem here, right? Doesn’t your superior, rational, Bayesian inference thought process tell you that this is a futile endeavor?
I'm not doing any kind of bayesian inference, or defending internet "rationalism". I'm merely interested in the principle of charity.
I also have a problem with the lazy antizionism of the American left
I feel like that comment was about [someone being a hypocrite](https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-bari-weiss-embodies-its-worst-failings-and-its-lack-of-viewpoint-diversity/) more than antizionism. [Like this tweet cannot be from some principled defender of liberal values or whatever](https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1306662832805613569?s=20)
Also, this is a mockery sub, I feel like “charity” is not a particular priority.
I’m definitely having a hard time these days assuring right-wingers
that their insane conspiracies about being censored aren’t real instead
of just mocking them and telling them how much I’m going to enjoy making
their views illegal.
This is a fun sentence after the president has announced today that he will create a commission to remove “toxic propaganda, ideological poison” from school curriculum.
“it’s actually good when the president orders that anyone who thinks slavery happened be murdered in the street, because it protects free speech” - scott whoever, high iq thinker
I read a little bit, and he completely lost me shortly after mentioning this Current Affairs article. The topic of this post is whether the huge audiences and massive popularity of right wing pundits undercuts their cries of silencing and censorship, and he quotes Current Affairs rattling off a whole litany of right wing celebs, noting the relative dearth of their left wing counterparts, and making exactly the point he’s trying to dispute.
Then, in response, he says that an idea having a lot of famous advocates doesn’t mean it’s popular or well-liked? What does that have to do with whether the idea is being silenced or not? Am I missing something? I wanted to call this “slick” or a “sleight of hand”, but it honestly seems more like a scaly strong-armed robbery at gunpoint!
If his audience’s self-reported IQ scores really are accurate, they’re the strongest evidence against the meaningfulness of IQ as a metric anyone could ever hope for.
I vaguely remember this post and was debating whether I’d care to go through it again. After a bit I did open it and lasted until the second paragraph and the phrase “careful and important thinkers like Eric Weinstein”.
I thought some of the analysis was interesting, but I couldn’t get past the part where he took Bari Weiss’s stories of how hard it is to be an IDW thinker at face value. She’s someone who’s routinely tried to get people fired or deplatformed for criticizing Israel.
I’m definitely having a hard time these days assuring right-wingers that their insane conspiracies about being censored aren’t real instead of just mocking them and telling them how much I’m going to enjoy making their views illegal.
booo not worth revisiting