Jump to content

Kalbear

Members
  • Content count

    49,477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kalbear

  • Rank
    59 warning points
  • Birthday 10/26/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://addictedtoquack.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The worst BwB meetup area EVER

Recent Profile Visitors

19,832 profile views
  1. Kalbear

    Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

    This doesn't match history or timeline. Milo wasn't ever particularly popular and that's not what he cared about - he cared about fame. And then he was removed from various platforms due to his child sex comments. And then he lost basically everything. This makes really no sense at all - so you're saying that because Spencer was deplatformed it's okay because he's actually a nazi (he isn't), but because Shapiro HAVEN'T been deplatformed that it's clear it doesn't work? How does that jive in your mind? Ben Shapiro has not had remotely the same kind of protesting that others have, largely because he's not particularly special. Jordan Peterson is the same. I think that they're well-known in your neck of the woods, but neither is showing up on Maher or getting really any edge past the infowars bubble. And that, btw, is another good example - Alex Jones getting deplatformed has reduced his revenue and reach absurdly well. And it didn't take a mob shouting him down (or at least not JUST that) - it took facebook and twitter. Also, I find it exceedingly ironic that in a topic about ostensible superiority of objectivist views, people are claiming that all speech should be heard and tolerated and allowed to flourish. That is not remotely an objectivist viewpoint. The people with bad views and bad ideas should be crushed, they shouldn't ever speak, and if they do they should be mercilessly crushed by the gifted, because the gifted are more right. What about those things? Those are all excellent examples of how successful deplatforming can be. In the case of feminism, they're examples of how good ideas work through those kind of things. Clearly if you heard about the filmmaker, it didn't work particularly well in their case either. That said, here's the central difference: the 19th century feminist was largely bound not by public deplatforming, but by the governments. Same goes for your example of the patriarchy. Same likely goes for that film maker. The solution is to shockingly allow for deplatforming by the people ,but not by the government. History disagrees. What keeps those groups from tearing at each other is the thought that there exists an easier way to get their policy and emotional goals met aside from revolution, violence or destruction. "Public discourse" is not remotely it, and there are absurd examples of this alone. Public discourse didn't make the civil rights movement work - it was the shocking public brutality against defenseless people combined with the implied threats of massive riots. Arguments don't sway people - movements do. I agree - free speech is an incredibly important thing. You understand what that 1st amendment right means, right? It doesn't mean that you are free to have your voice amplified however you choose; it means that the government cannot restrict your speech. I firmly believe that the government should not be restricting people's speech. I am also a firm believer that speech that is inherently illiberal and undemocratic must go opposed with great vigor by the people. These two ideals are not remotely disconnected in any way.
  2. Kalbear

    Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

    Not particularly, and certainly not compared to his reach on Facebook and instagram. The downfall of Milo was when he was removed from most social media platforms. Maher increased his fame significantly. This doesn't appear to be backed by evidence. Richard Spencer was well known before being attacked. After being attacked and forced out of, well, anywhere, he admits that his own message is basically done for and he can't be heard anywhere. Attacking Spencer and shouting him down didn't make him more famous. It made him afraid and weak. Again, history shows this isn't remotely the case for any level of 'vile' that you'd care to administer. The fallacy here is that there existed some magical time where there was convincing people that weren't in your group via rational discourse of something different. If that time existed, it was fleeting and narrow.
  3. Kalbear

    Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

    In general - it is effective for someone in that person's ingroup to call that person vile. It is entirely ineffective for the purposes of convincing that person to do basically anything at all if you aren't a member of their ingroup. Especially the more American conservative that person is. However, making them unwelcome in a community that they want to be welcomed into is actually reasonably effective in changing things, since you're getting ingroup behavior mods. The other thing that is effective (though not necessarily in changing that person's mind) is deplatforming them. Shouting that person off stage, removing their mic, removing their ability to continue their speech, never treating their asinine ideas as having any merit or having any right to even be heard - this, well, works. It doesn't convince that person, perhaps (eventually a lot of people get tired of not being able to be heard), but it convinces others to shout them down too, and eventually they just...don't get to talk much. This is one of the most underrated things to do with respect to white supremacists and objectivists and the like. Milo Y used to be a guy who showed up on Bill Maher; now he's unfunded, begging for money and no one cares about him because people removed his microphone. Free speech does not mean you get handed a megaphone.
  4. Kalbear

    Pokémon Go: It’s a Shiny World Out There!

    Protip: you can remove and re-add a friend to get credit if you want. You don't lose any friendship bonus or any lucky friends status unless you keep them removed for 90+ days.
  5. Kalbear

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Sure. But repression of the people there and restoring order will get money back.
  6. Kalbear

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    They have millions of people in reeducation camps. The only reason the west cares about Hong Kong repression is that its costing money. If the military rolls in under the pretense of dealing with terrorists (which is what they're doing now) and kills a bunch of people the US won't give a shit. Jamal khashoggi was murdered and we have tape of it. What did the US do about that?
  7. Kalbear

    The Boys (Amazon)

    See, if anything I think that the show is actually even more realistic. We've heard rumors of Weinstein for 20 years, and it took that long for SOMEONE to come forward and claim something. How long did Larry Nassar get away with molesting literally hundreds of pre-teen and teenage girls? How many people contributed to both cover ups? Epstein was put in prison and was allowed to continue his bullshit for 11 years after his prison, and before that he was active for another 15. The allegations against Bill Cosby went on for more than 30 years. The allegations against R Kelly also went on nearly that long, and he's JUST getting charged with something. The sad fact is that if you're popular, people will bend over backwards to give you the massive benefit of the doubt. Superheroes would be like a combination of the police, movie stars and politicians, and everyone loves them. Everyone wants to be them. So no, I don't think it's something that they keep particularly secret; I'm sure there are plenty of shakycam footages of them here and there, rumors on the darkweb and infowars and the like. Some of them are probably true. But going up against the most popular people on the planet who are backed up by the world's biggest and most lucrative corporation is not an easy thing. Rich people get to make a lot of rules just for them. Superpowered ones even more so.
  8. Kalbear

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Since that was not the conversation we were having I think we are good.
  9. Kalbear

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Again, when you choose to redefine words to mean what you want them to, arguments magically get won. When you look at Biden's record, you see a person who has a lot of racist political PoVs. Those are his actions. That's also true for both Bill and Hillary Clinton, it's true for John Kerry, it's true for virtually any politician who has been in any office since the 90s. It doesn't mean that I think Biden is the antichrist or that we should vote against him no matter what. This is what 'racist' means to you - that because someone is racist, they are entirely the enemy and hideous. That's not what it actually means. Obama had to regularly deal with a whole lot of racists in order to get things done. What, you think Joe Liebermann wasn't racist? Please. Here's the uncomfortable truth about racism in the US: people of color have to make a choice every single minute whether or not they're going to speak up and fight that battle or let it go. Every minute, they're deciding whether or not it's worth it to lose their job, make their career harder, make their family life harder, make their kids' school life harder when someone is racist to them. Most of the time they just let it go, because it isn't worth the struggle at that point. But that in no way means it isn't racist; it means that they just haven't been called out on it by that person. If you haven't heard it yet, it means that you're not worth the effort to educate. If you think that Obama vetted everyone by saying 'let's rule out anyone who did anything racist' you're high. Yeah, I think it's pretty telling you don't go into that at all. Your argument remains that Biden can't be racist because he has black friends. Racism does have a lot of grey areas. That's why Biden's form of racism isn't something automatically ostracizing. But it doesn't mean it's not, ya know, actually racist. In particular Biden shows repeatedly a massive amount of unconscious racial bias. That's typical for someone in their 70s. It's not particularly weird. I doubt it's particularly malicious. But don't pretend that the racism isn't there. How is talking about Biden's racism with you entrenching Biden's bigoted views? For the same reason that when someone insults me first and then says sorry it doesn't make the insult just disappear. That came from somewhere. Do people regularly misspeak and say 'poor' when they mean 'black'? And that's racism. That it's widespread and throughout the culture is more a product of the welfare queens of Reagan's 80s than it being somehow okay to be racist. Let me ask you this - do you think that that is acceptable that their thought is that black women are the ones on food stamps? Is that the right stereotype? The correct answer is 'someone who needs food assistance'.
  10. Kalbear

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Yes, I absolutely 100% do, and I'm shocked that you can even ask that question legitimately. Of course Obama would pick a person who might be racist if it could help him win and help him with his vision. Obama isn't going to use some kind of purity test there. Now, would Obama pick someone who is blatantly, loudly, politically super racist like Trump? No, I don't think he would. But would Obama pick someone who genuinely believes that black people are synonymous with poor people? Certainly, because that's most people. Especially older, whiter ones in politics. That's just the norm. If Obama didn't do that, he wouldn't be able to pick anyone over 40. But yes, Obama picked someone who supports the Hyde amendment, who supported the policies of segregationists, who was a huge supporter of the tough on drug crimes in the 90s, because it made voters feel safer that Obama can be hanging out with that kind of guy. In this case, that's a feature for Obama, not a bug. That reassured a lot of people that if you were just casually a bit racist and occasionally racist in your politics you could still be buds with Obama, and he wasn't going to go all crazy on white people. This is the kind of bullshit balancing act that people of color in the US have to deal with all the time, and your argument against that basically boils down to 'Biden can't be racist, he has a black friend'. Ah, so unless you're lynching people you're not racist. Got it. Yeah, pretty soon if you call people racist enough they'll join the other side and be even MORE racist, just to show us.
  11. Kalbear

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    What does supporting LGBT have to do with being a racist? Why is it obvious that he's not racist when he equates poor people with people of color? Why is it obvious that he's not racist when he had his fun times with segregating schools and bussing? Chances are excellent that if you're a white man in the US you're at least a bit racist. If you're a white man in your 70s chances are good that you're more than a bit racist.
  12. Kalbear

    The Boys (Amazon)

    My assumption is that the superheroes are at least as corrupt and at least as covered up as any police organization or military organization. I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy sites out there that say what REALLY happened to flight 37 or whatever, but people in general know not to talk too much shit about the superheroes, and no one bothers to prosecute them.
  13. Kalbear

    Careerchat III

    Unless you're really desperate and competing with a lot of people, probably not. Depends a lot on your field, but I would think these days having a better LinkedIn profile, having better contacts, and having relevant experience matters a lot more than formatting. Also, speaking of LinkedIn this message amused me: NO BUDGET FOR SALARY? SIGN ME UP
  14. Kalbear

    What should be done... about climate change

    Oh hey look the IPCC just called for changing the way people eat But sure, Musk's stoner ass will save us all
×