If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

that's probably true, but i do think gov should do certain things that are economically unfeasible

 

[arg]

I am ok with some of my taxes going towards old people as long as future generations will help out with my erection meds

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm just trying to end this. I don't know how he has the time to do "research" for a debate on a metal forum. I don't, and so I don't, which ends up with him lobbing personal jabs because I provide "no evidence."

I'm sorry @HamburgerBoy, but your perception about what I want from these exchanges is warped. If I'm not providing the evidence you want, then say you won't be convinced without evidence and bow out. You don't have to be a shithead (and yes, I mean that in the most racist way possible).

Where did I get personal with you? The fact of the matter is that you don't like to substantiate your beliefs, you take a "common sense" approach to debate, kind of in Trumpian fashion tbqh.

this is the dumbest and most basement dwelling statement i've ever read

"I'm an entitled white person and my in-laws will literally give me cancer, you don't know the pains of having to live with family, you fucking virgin living with your parents"

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm just trying to end this. I don't know how he has the time to do "research" for a debate on a metal forum. I don't, and so I don't, which ends up with him lobbing personal jabs because I provide "no evidence."

I'm sorry @HamburgerBoy, but your perception about what I want from these exchanges is warped. If I'm not providing the evidence you want, then say you won't be convinced without evidence and bow out. You don't have to be a shithead (and yes, I mean that in the most racist way possible).

Also, lmao @ you of all people using the "I don't know how you have so much free time" canard, coming from the guy that can wank for paragraphs about fiction and post-modernist philosophers in substitution for a valid argument.

No one should have to be convinced without evidence. If you are that speaks volumes about how vapid your own concept of argument and reason is.

 

[rms]

Idk if you're calling me or Ein privileged there

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Idk if you're calling me or Ein privileged there

I pretty obviously quoted you and made that in response to your particular post, pointing out the irony of what you had said (though you probably missed it because you're a dumb person).

 

[rms]

You've demonstrated being an idiot several times lately but acting like I am privileged is hilarious.

 

[Einherjar86]

Also, lmao @ you of all people using the "I don't know how you have so much free time" canard, coming from the guy that can wank for paragraphs about fiction and post-modernist philosophers in substitution for a valid argument.

Because I've already done all my research in that respect and know what to say and/or where to find what I want to reference. It's not time-consuming.

I'm sorry you don't feel that humanistic scholarship counts as a "valid argument." I suppose that's what happens when you fetishize the laboratory, comfortable in your false consciousness of scientific objectivity, mired in the language games of your specific field of study, ignorant of the différance that accompanies all utterances (scientific or otherwise), complacent toward the hegemonic belief in individualism, blind to the reification of...

Fuck, there I go again. That is some serious bullshit. Carry on.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Because I've already done all my research in that respect and know what to say and/or where to find what I want to reference. It's not time-consuming.

I'm sorry you don't feel that humanistic scholarship counts as a "valid argument." I suppose that's what happens when you fetishize the laboratory, comfortable in your false consciousness of scientific objectivity, mired in the language games of your specific field of study, ignorant of the différance that accompanies all utterances (scientific or otherwise), complacent toward the hegemonic belief in individualism, blind to the reification of...

Fuck, there I go again. That is some serious bullshit. Carry on.

You've done no research, which you've basically already admitted to ("I don't have statistics for this, but it makes perfect sense"). All you have is folk wisdom and feels. I doubt that anything you've posted in this discussion would be considered scholarly, even by the standards of the likely-shit "humanistic" journals you already contribute to.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're correct, it wouldn't be. I've acknowledged as much.

Our argument's over, go watch some porn.

 

[Einherjar86]

In other news, kind of a mixed bag here.

Sure, scientists know plenty about the classic greenhouse drivers of climate change, CO2 and methane. But humanity has also been pumping particulates into the system, and these tend to cool things down. Power plants that burn fossil fuels, for instance, release sulfur dioxide, which can lead to the formation of particles in the atmosphere that bounce the sun’s energy back into space. (Which, as it happens, may be a way to geoengineer the planet to counteract climate change. Not by burning more fossil fuels, of course, but by adding particulates in the atmosphere.)

The researchers’ approach to this study was to combine models, and more models, and then some more—16 total—not with warming trends, but how temperature fluctuated from 1880 to 2016. “Essentially, the models tell us the relationship between temperature variations and climate sensitivity, and the observations tell us the temperature variations in the world," says Cox. "Together they allow us to get better estimates of climate sensitivity for our planet.”

So, the numbers. What the researchers landed on was an ECS range of 2.2 to 3.4°C, compared to the commonly accepted range of 1.5 and 4.5°C. Admittedly, 2.2 on the low end isn’t ideal for the future of our planet. (For each degree of warming, for example, you might expect up to a 400 percent increase in area burned by wildfires in parts of the western US. Very not ideal.) And the researchers say this means the probability of the ECS being less than 1.5°C—the Paris Climate Agreement’s super optimistic goal beyond the 2°C goal—is less than 3 percent. The upside, though, is they say this new estimate means the probability of the ECS passing 4.5°C is less than 1 percent.

But hold up, says Swiss Federal Institute of Technology climate scientist Reto Knutti, who wasn’t involved in the research. “What's the chance of something fundamentally being wrong in our models?” he asks. “Is that really less than 1 percent? I would argue there's more than a one in a hundred chance that something has been forgotten in all of the models, just because our understanding is incomplete.”

Not that what these researchers have done is bad science. It’s just that global climate change is an exceedingly complex problem. There’s no way any scientist can dig down into all the granular details—changes in vegetation, small-scale hydrology, every single weather event like a hurricane or tornado. So what scientists do is find simplified descriptions of these small-scale events. “For clouds, for instance, you say, 'OK, the more humidity the more likely it is to rain, and if you have more than 95 percent saturation, then you rain,'” says Knutti. “It's an ad hoc way of describing rain without properly describing the process of rain formation, because you can't.”

https://www.wired.com/story/the-diz...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[rms]

something less serious, this is so fucking catty

 

[CiG]

Muh right not to be offended though.

 

[Dak]

In other news, kind of a mixed bag here.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-diz...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I would agree with Knutti by default. I do think it's interesting that people make fun of chemtrail conspiracy theorists, when stratospheric aerosols themselves are not scifi, and they are increasingly being referred to as a potential geoengineering option. Maybe it's not already happening by conspiracy, but "chem trails" themselves are not batshit.

something less serious, this is so fucking catty

Saw that the other day, was great. You can almost see her id seething. I'm potentially doing a paper on the wage gap for one of my classes. It's a paper where we are supposed to kind of be edgy so I picked a safe one .

 

[rms]

best part was when JP goes "i got you" and and she replies "you did....*pause* *retort* !"

no idea what network this is but so fucking unprofessional, especially for a 30m interview!

reminds me of this:

 

[CiG]

If JP wasn't married I'd have assumed he gave her his Kermit kock once the cameras were switched off.

 

[rms]

hah i didnt get that vibe at all. that chick was getting her twitter likes

and this is the strangest news i've heard today


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42741789 :
Jacinda Ardern: New Zealand PM reveals she is pregnant

 

[CiG]

Whenever a woman gets mad or catty like that with me and tries to be brash and aggressive I sense sexual tension. I wonder why...

 

[Dak]

http://quillette.com/2018/01/17/jordan-b-peterson-critical-theory-new-bourgeoisie/

Christakis mentions two important things about Newman. First, she seemed hostile towards Peterson, clearly going into the interview with a moral prejudice towards him. Second, she seemed unable to engage with his arguments, instead misrepresenting them (“You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies?”) or taking issue with them (during a conversation about unhealthy relationships, Newman asked: “What gives you the right to say that?” Answer: “I’m a clinical psychologist.”) At one point, she was rendered speechless.

It was as though she had never heard arguments like Peterson’s before, and was taken aback to discover they existed. As a presumably well-read person, why had she not been exposed to arguments like this before? The answer, I think, is that these arguments have largely been banished from contemporary mainstream news media and entertainment. Only because of Peterson’s immense grassroots success has he forced his way into the conversation, which makes it all the more awkward when an interviewer looking to put him in place ends up bewildered.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's not a bad article. It makes some decent points. And I'd agree that critical theory doesn't promote universal values, and that it must turn its critical gaze on itself. But of course, for the record, it does do this--the critique is just more nuanced than is useful for this person's account (that is, it's more specific than is necessary for this argument). I mean, Jean Baudrillard is a critical theorist, but he's not a Marxist (although he started off that way; same goes for Lyotard).

We can mock the interviewer all we want, but unfortunately we don't have enough information to know whether the problem is her intelligence or the limited platform the interview provides.

Peterson and critical theorists speak different theoretical vernaculars. Whether you think one is more politically relevant or even truthful is fine, but that's a matter of persuasion, not reality. We can't prove one language to be more accurate than another within the vocabulary of that language. Languages can only fail or succeed. The test of their application is whether they manage to survive. It has nothing to do with being right.

When we come to these differences in vernacular, it's immensely difficult to translate them into a journalistic environment. Peterson has the upper hand, believe it or not, because he's being asked questions. His platform is one of explanation. I personally think the journalist's silence indicates her inability to translate Peterson's comments into her own perspective, which might require unpacking certain ideas in order for them to make sense.

Long story short, I think this kind of miscommunication is more complicated than that Peterson is the adept and the journalist is the apprentice (although again, it might be true that she's literate in only the superficial aspects of her theoretical approach).

Also, last word--critical theory definitely isn't a "methodology." The author's description of critical theory is limited to the Frankfurt School. Critical theory encompasses a much broader range of methodologies.