Leaving this one up because it’s so fucking funny, but please
remember that this isn’t your local place for mere tech wankers and IDW
grifters
Try and keep it on the LessWrong network path (and I swear to God if
anybody tries to litigate me on this it will this time be an instant
permaban: I don’t give a shit about your thoughts on how to “grow” this
“community”)
> Leaving this one up because it’s so fucking funny
I usually find following people who post in these subs mostly makes me depressed about the world, but this particular link is so indistinguishable from a poorly written AI text generator that it cannot help but delight.
> I swear to God if anybody tries to litigate me on this it will this time be an instant permaban: I don’t give a shit about your thoughts on how to “grow” this “community”
You're not the boss of me.
There are two guards at the door
One can only tell you the correct way to the sex dungeon, and the other can tell you either the correct way to the sex dungeon or to the room of incomprehensible zen proverbs
Therefore the only question can be: where is the third guard?
Was he as shit at maths as he is at this? Like has anyone checked
whether his dissertation is just gibberish strung together? “the abelian
clusters are therefore derived from the hypersurreal/non-transfinite
geometry of sequential ordered pairings (n-tuples). It follows from this
that 2+2=4 in all neo-axiomatic schema and under all interpretations of
the erdos-formal system. This proof is left as an exercise to the
reader. QED.”
Plenty of decent mathematicians are inveterate fuckwits in other respects.
>With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when. (...) If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?
\-- Johnny von Neumann
His PhD thesis showed up a while ago on social media and we all had a good laugh about it - in my case second hand because I don’t do maths good, but apparently it’s nothing but exposition and cribbed proofs of obvious ideas
You can [check his dissertation](https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1803&context=utk_graddiss) yourself if you know some maths and want a laugh
I'm just so tickled by the fact that he opens a thesis in combinatorics with pages of elementary binomial identities *and then gives proofs of them* but also, those proofs are basically handwaves anyway? Like, who do you think is reading this, James?
“all lives matter” is a racist dialectic meant to negate “black lives
matter”, i.e., “there sure is a lot of systemic racism and hypocrisy in
our supposedly enlightened society”. the synthesis (their goal) is “some
(politically white) lives matter more than others (and there’s a racist
hierarchy of mattering)”.
This is just hearing ‘Black Lives Matter’ and shouting back ‘No, All
Lives Matter’ but less succinct. Being long-winded about it does not
turn a bald assertion into proof of anything.
That’s what you took from it? Not the insane Dunning-Kruger of the dialectical metaphor? Or the bizarre attempt to turn what he *thinks* BLM is about (dialectics and cultural Marxism perhaps) in what he *thinks* is an oh so clever fashion?
According to his fans, he's supposedly doing this as a bit. Mimicking the thoughts and language of 'Critical Race Theory activists' to show how silly it is.
However, he's been doing this "bit" for over a year now, and is also embracing covid conspiracies and argued for voting for Trump. This 'character' is also eerily similar to his past sincere militant atheist phase. But, I'm sure he's just pretending to be an idiot.
> But, I'm sure he's just pretending to be an idiot.
I suppose that would be how he would attempt to excuse his behavior, but I'm not sure why. A man that fucks goats, whether as performance or to troll, is still a goatfucker.
I don’t think he is pretending, look back over his entire history and he just comes off as a genuine walking dunning Krueger long before his idpol schtick
I would say that almost the exact opposite of this is true.
Grammatically, it’s very clear that “black lives matter” as a slogan is
meant to imply that governments treat black lives as if they don’t
matter. “Save the whales” means: contrary to what we have previously
doing, we need to save the whales. It does not mean “save *only* the
whales”.
Well, “Black Lives Matter” came first, making the phrase “All Lives
Matter” the reactionary one, but I think he knows that.
Really he’s just repackaging the old “The Gay Agenda™ is coming to
destroy your way of life” conservative rallying cry against a new
target, and slapping some flashy buzzwords he learned from JBP on it.
This is just verbal dick wriggling in the hopes that his followers will
start whacking him off.
no no, i think his argument is that the enlightenment gave us "all men are equal" and so you're not allowed to complain that not all men are in fact treated equal, because we've already achieved equality, because we said so. standard reverse racism right wing nuttery.
The Hegel understander has logged on. These IDW grifters honestly
don’t know what they are talking about, but they sound so convincing
that they convince people who don’t know this stuff that postmodernism
or Marxism is something that it isn’t. I’ve even explained some
postmodern ideas to people before who are right wing and they thought it
was awesome until they found out who said it. I’ve never understood why
more right wingers don’t like Foucault, especially considering their
critiques of academia.
Leaving this one up because it’s so fucking funny, but please remember that this isn’t your local place for mere tech wankers and IDW grifters
Try and keep it on the LessWrong network path (and I swear to God if anybody tries to litigate me on this it will this time be an instant permaban: I don’t give a shit about your thoughts on how to “grow” this “community”)
I just want cops to stop fucking with black people so much, bud. Not that fucking complicated
Heterodox thinking is when you fail an Ideological Turing Test, and the harder you fail it the more heterodox you are
Was he as shit at maths as he is at this? Like has anyone checked whether his dissertation is just gibberish strung together? “the abelian clusters are therefore derived from the hypersurreal/non-transfinite geometry of sequential ordered pairings (n-tuples). It follows from this that 2+2=4 in all neo-axiomatic schema and under all interpretations of the erdos-formal system. This proof is left as an exercise to the reader. QED.”
“all lives matter” is a racist dialectic meant to negate “black lives matter”, i.e., “there sure is a lot of systemic racism and hypocrisy in our supposedly enlightened society”. the synthesis (their goal) is “some (politically white) lives matter more than others (and there’s a racist hierarchy of mattering)”.
truly incredible
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1337206925373616128
This is just hearing ‘Black Lives Matter’ and shouting back ‘No, All Lives Matter’ but less succinct. Being long-winded about it does not turn a bald assertion into proof of anything.
I would say that almost the exact opposite of this is true. Grammatically, it’s very clear that “black lives matter” as a slogan is meant to imply that governments treat black lives as if they don’t matter. “Save the whales” means: contrary to what we have previously doing, we need to save the whales. It does not mean “save *only* the whales”.
The bold next step in Petersonian thought
Recolonising dialectics.
The grey tribe are not sending their best. Did any of them survive the one-two combo of COVID-19 and the 2020 election?
Well, “Black Lives Matter” came first, making the phrase “All Lives Matter” the reactionary one, but I think he knows that.
Really he’s just repackaging the old “The Gay Agenda™ is coming to destroy your way of life” conservative rallying cry against a new target, and slapping some flashy buzzwords he learned from JBP on it. This is just verbal dick wriggling in the hopes that his followers will start whacking him off.
Haha fuck this is so bad
The Hegel understander has logged on. These IDW grifters honestly don’t know what they are talking about, but they sound so convincing that they convince people who don’t know this stuff that postmodernism or Marxism is something that it isn’t. I’ve even explained some postmodern ideas to people before who are right wing and they thought it was awesome until they found out who said it. I’ve never understood why more right wingers don’t like Foucault, especially considering their critiques of academia.
I’d imagine hearing this come from Anna Khachiyan’s mouth
based ^^