I mean, she's basically a troll, right? She posts this stuff and then gets pages and pages of outraged responses and people circlejerking about how brave she is/they are for being having these brave discussions. In other words, she has managed to recreate the Intellectual Dark Web through one- or two-sentence tweets.
I think it's important to note that this "trolling" only ever seems to cut one way. She will never ask "Who is the most parasitic class: Landlords or finance capitalists?" or "Who was the best leader ever: Robert Mugabe, Kim Il Sung or Mao Zedong?"
This goes for all "trolls" whose trolling horizon stretches from centre-right to far-right.
Well, yeah, but that’s kind of the intellectual dark web in a nut shell. They are a raucous and free wheeling debate consisting of the diverse range of views — as long as those views would be broadly acceptable at, say, a CPAC meeting.
Their audience is pretty much just the right wing and they work hard to make them feel comfortable while at the same reassure them that they are transgressive and daring.
Yeah, for all their bullcrap about "diversity of ideas" their talking points seem to be strangely narrowed down to the IQ of black people and why women don't like the computer as much as they do. I for one would be very much looking forward to *true* intellectual diversity - where are the anti-language anprims, the georgists, the bonapartists, the old school feudalists, the posadists, the pan-arabists, the political lesbians, the anti-natalists?
>where are the anti-language anprims, the georgists, the bonapartists, the old school feudalists, the posadists, the pan-arabists, the political lesbians, the anti-natalists?
in their mothers' basements
Maybe this is because I only run in leftist circles but I seriously can't imagine anyone getting upset about asking the parasitic class question, not even conservatives. Leftist talking points do not really upset people, even when they identify a clear enemy. I think it's because rich people have mostly received a marx-heavy education and have been prepared to deal with people saying "eat the rich" in a way that normals have *not* been prepared to deal with radical rationalists saying "eat the normals."
That's probably true, but it's something of a red herring. Mao is perceived as being a communist leader, so for the purpose of predicting the occurrence and trajectory of internet arguments that's all you need to know.
Oh, when you said "right" I thought you were saying Mao wasn't a real communist. What a good pun. :) I'll avoid the "was Mao really a marxist" argument, though (I think there's a good reason why Maoists are distinguished from Marxists but let's not go down that rabbit hole.)
More importantly, I disagree with your point that a Marx-heavy education would be guaranteed to make people believe anything. If you're rich hearing a professor say "Mao was great" will not actually convince you that you should be treated like Mao would have treated you. What it will do is *desensitize* you to the emotional impact of that sort of rhetoric, which is why I claim in elite liberal circles it is not very emotionally impactful trolling to say "eat the rich," even though everyone you're talking to is rich and none of them want to be eaten.
I think you've never seen how easily people get "trolled" by simple Marxist analysis. I've been banned from every rationalist sub for simply stating the basics. Moderators here can verify that I am telling the truth.
>If you're rich hearing a professor say "Mao was great" will not actually convince you that you should be treated like Mao would have treated you.
If they were rational people they would be able to look at Mao and say "yes, this man is correct". That people do not do this is an indictment of the education system and speaks to how right-wing elite academia is.
Well, you're saying "all reasonable people would conclude that Mao is great if given the facts," and I'm saying "most elite college students would never conclude that Mao is great although they would become emotionally acclimated to the opinion." Although I don't necessarily agree with your statement, it does not contradict mine - so really there is no disagreement (at least within the topic of this discussion.)
God bless the people replying they can’t vote because there’s no ‘i
don’t know’ button without quite realising ‘deleting the I don’t know
button’ is the entire epistemic objective of the account.
Also game theory: sell your nudes on onlyfans or some other mildly
taboo activity so you become fully immune to ad-hom attacks. Works with
anything, time to start including your horny alt where you sniff socks
in your Twitter bios lads
>Also game theory: sell your nudes on onlyfans or some other mildly taboo activity so you become fully immune to ad-hom attacks. Works with anything, time to start including your horny alt where you sniff socks in your Twitter bios lads
taking pages out of TheAmazingAtheist's playbook i see
a video was leaked of him covering himself in chocolate syrup and coffee and sodomizing himself with a banana. He pretty much completely owned it, like "Yeah, I did that because I liked it. If that bothers you, good riddance." Like no shame or defensiveness or anything, just like a "what's the big deal?" reaction, which kinda took all the steam out of his trolls and I think ended up with him getting even more popular.
Unrelated : Dunno why Twitter thought i needed to see this
tweet as well on the same page as the are girls stupid question. But
i just wanted to share this ‘gotcha anticapitalists’ strawman from the
king of rationality himself.
God he just doubled down on his strawman. As he is not very rational, I have a book [he should read](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationality:_From_AI_to_Zombies)
Bonus: [immigration great replacement conspiracy theory tweet by a nazi (well, he follows boulder yeet, nrx'ers, mra's etc, im not being charitable here, I know)](https://twitter.com/SpeakingBee/status/1250098403637211136)
At least this [perhaps, I don't know, here [is a poll](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awY1MRlMKMc) where you can make up yourself if this twitter user is a one] nazi agrees, that Biden sucks.
It's bad as literature and he nerfed the "rationalist" "superpowers" of Harry so you can't even learn the full power of acausal robot Bayes from the book.
More threadjack from twitters 'you might also like this tweet' feature. [Quillette calls out right wing frauds](https://mobile.twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1252031944042278912), the quillette readers disagree (see comments).
Sorry Claire, lay with the people who worry about dogpills (dont google that if you dont know), get fleas.
tbh that looks like "gotcha conspiracy theorists who think (((Soros))) controls the economy" to me. That it's an abstraction like Moloch, rather than an unseen cabal, that "controls everything"
Starting to suspect that this woman is more of an opportunistic troll
than a true believer. She probably cottoned on to the fact that her
fanbase consists largely of LW/DE/IDW/RC retards who love it when a
naked girl asks “controversial questions” that may have “difficult
answers”. Trash attracts trash. These people deserve each other.
Just as with the 'kill dogs, or kill a race' question she will not explain the question. I'm assuming that the 'wow there is a lot of unexplored implied bullshit in this stupid hypothetical(*) question' part of the questions is part of the appeal. 'I'm only asking the questions, you decide what it all means!'.
*: im gonna be disappointed if she never did a 'should hypothetical questions remain hypothetical?' question.
I don't know, without her explaining things it is all speculation. Your guess is as good as mine, and I'm prob wrong. I'm just strawman speculating in the high amount of times I saw people react with 'what does this mean' or 'could you explain x to me' in reaction to her. (of course, tbf, she gets a lot of attention and no way she can react to everything, yadayadayada).
Sure, but that doesn't excuse anything.
E: in fact, i think one of the worst things you can do as an always online person is give into the 'lets do a social experiment' impulse. Esp as it is often unethical, and often the same as trolling.
I think the point of specifying “open tournament” was that anyone can enter who wants to, regardless of skill. So the question is about interest in competitive chess.
It's separated by sex to give more opportunities for women to win trophies, tournaments, etc. the same way many tournaments are separated by age. It's a form of affirmative action, and we could debate endlessly on whether it's appropriate, effective in bringing women to chess, etc. Personally I find these discussions dull and not very constructive. The women who do achieve top level regardless of sex like Judit Polgar just ignore all of this stuff anyway, just like Carlsen, Vachier-Lagrave, Fischer and Reshevsky ignored age restrictions when competing at the top level.
Fretting about this stuff a red flag for people who don't really play chess and just like to stir some crap out of childish nerd contrarianism. In my experience actual competitive chess players don't care much about the person they're sitting across when playing, only their moves matter.
I believe asking these questions is a kind of weird fetish for her
God bless the people replying they can’t vote because there’s no ‘i don’t know’ button without quite realising ‘deleting the I don’t know button’ is the entire epistemic objective of the account.
Also game theory: sell your nudes on onlyfans or some other mildly taboo activity so you become fully immune to ad-hom attacks. Works with anything, time to start including your horny alt where you sniff socks in your Twitter bios lads
[deleted]
Unrelated : Dunno why Twitter thought i needed to see this tweet as well on the same page as the are girls stupid question. But i just wanted to share this ‘gotcha anticapitalists’ strawman from the king of rationality himself.
E: sorry for the threadjack
Also among her recent tweets
who is she tho
Starting to suspect that this woman is more of an opportunistic troll than a true believer. She probably cottoned on to the fact that her fanbase consists largely of LW/DE/IDW/RC retards who love it when a naked girl asks “controversial questions” that may have “difficult answers”. Trash attracts trash. These people deserve each other.
[deleted]
I mean sure, why not
If chess competition is still separated by sex, why? Is it possible to blame discrimination. Chess is a game where the results are clearcut.
Someone mentioned the Intellectual Dark Web. I don’t know this girl, but she is asking Socratic questions. None of these questions is settled.