***Official H&F LC Thread***
A valid strategy for getting ripped imo.
(From http://extrafabulouscomics.com/, kyleb's (RIP) favorite web comic)
theres a concept in psychology, that the brain doesn't understand "dont" in the context of cognitive motor stuffs. dont touch the hot stove... kid reaches slowly for the stove.
so how does teaching the ins and outs of racism with a big DON'T attached produce a desirable result?
finding more ways to separate us physically and mentally is the wrong direction. bloodlines dont stay purebred for more than a generation in usa. we are the mixed race of earth.
theres a concept in psychology, that the brain doesn't understand "dont" in the context of cognitive motor stuffs. dont touch the hot stove... kid reaches slowly for the stove.
so how does teaching the ins and outs of racism with a big DON'T attached produce a desirable result?
finding more ways to separate us physically and mentally is the wrong direction. bloodlines dont stay purebred for more than a generation in usa. we are the mixed race of earth.
In one of the great twists, race is entirely a social construct (like vegetables), but a necessary requirement for the existence of racism. By forcing people to identify others through this entirely arbitrary lens, as antiracist theory suggests, you're actually ingraining and exacerbating racism, since if we just stopped making arbitrary groupings we could hate people for more tangible things like having small boobs or red hair.
Again, you don't understand the definition of newspeak. I'm not going to engage with someone uneducated since it is by definition impossible to discuss and you're unwilling to be educated. Again, I encourage you to use get a dictionary or keep falling back on weird mental gymnastics to cope.
Nah man, I understand it just fine. Good talk, tho.
I proved it was a real issue and that it was an election issue. That was the entirety of my claims. Unlike you, I didn't expand beyond the facts at hand.
LOL Proved? Yup, when Rich Muny needs to prove something, who needs statistical significance?
Nope, sorry you didn't prove it. Do you not remember how this works? These are your rules! Unless you have polling data (from an unbiased source, of course) which shows a statistically significant difference in shop lifting perceptions in California between Trump voters and Harris voters, you can't prove anything. Proving things is hard. That's just like your opinion, man.
Moreover, as you may recall we started this argument on the topic of misinformation. So even if you found the above study showing statistical significance, we still need to know if it is true (unless you are willing to accept that they voters may have been wrong about their perceptions and that they thought it was real, when it really wasn't...based on what you've written, it's clear you don't think that). So you still need to find some studies showing statistically significant differences in shoplifting between X and Y (whatever those things happen to be).
So to recap, you would need to first, show a study that proved that shoplifting increases were real to a statistically significant extent. Then you would need to find another study that showed that these attitudes differed in voters to a statistically significant extent. Finally, you would need to show these attitudes caused them to vote differently than they otherwise would have to a statistically significant extent. You haven't come close to "proving it". Sorry, Rich. I didn't make the rules.
guys, i'm going to buy an apple tomorrow, what should i get?
Feel free to post the definition. Or would you like to circleback to the prior argument where by pointing out race, you are ingraining race as a social concept and being a racist. That was p ****ing hilarious.
Sure, bro
Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will,[1][2] which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.
So you may not seem to know what a dictionary is. Let me explain.
What you linked in an encyclopedia article. But hey, you obviously know the difference, right? I mean... the same org manages both websites.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/newspeak
But its obvious why you didn't use this:
"Use of ambiguous, misleading, or euphemistic words in order to deceive the listener, especially by politicians and officials. "
Hrm. Like using the term "undocumented" when you mean people with documents and people without. Ambiguous? Yep. Misleading? 100% Euphemistic? Obviously.
I mean you either literally don't know what a dictionary is or you are trying to hide the fact that you're engaging in absurd level of mental gymnastics to cope. I'm honestly not sure if you think you're lying. You could be that far gone. But hey, lets fall back on "To understand the context of my asinine claims, you need to read 1000s of words of nonsense" instead of making reasonable claims that are plainly understood.
But punching down on Rich is obv fun. So whatever makes you happy.
LOL Proved? Yup, when Rich Muny needs to prove something, who needs statistical significance?
It's proven, bro. California has a shoplifting problem. Everyone here knows it. Everyone everywhere knows it.
Your claim that you proved that less intelligent people tended to vote for Trump is also wrong. You may think it. You may believe it. But you didn't prove it. It's just your opinion.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/20241127-SEA-WhatHappenedtoHoneyCrisp-AmandaSuarez-14e9d056abae47bb9c04d73584bf137e.jpg)
Maybe Yugo will find this.
Empire and Northern Spy are my favorite apples. or skip the apple go straight to the cyder.
So you may not seem to know what a dictionary is. Let me explain.
What you linked in an encyclopedia article. But hey, you obviously know the difference, right? I mean... the same org manages both websites.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/newspeak
But its obvious why you didn't use this:
"Use of ambiguous, misleading, or euphemistic words in order to deceive the listener, especially by politicians and officials. "
Hrm. Like using the term "undocumented" when
Punching down on NotThremp is fun too. This is hilarious.
To recap
Melk: So, in the book, here's what newspeak is
Thremp: LOL you obviously haven't read the book
Melk: LOL WAT
Thremp: I invite you to cite a definition
Melk: Here is a defintion from the wikipedia page which describes the definition from the exact context of the book. You know one you're stupidly claiming I haven't read
Thremp: No not that definition. I wanted you to use a definition that makes almost no reference to the source material. You know the book that we're talking about. Yes, I want a definition that makes as little reference to that as possible. Obviously a single line definition is superior to one that considers the context of the book (you know the one we're talking about) and describes the meaning of the word in far greater detail. I am very smart!
LOL Thremp. Thanks for playing. If you'll go back to my first post on the topic I was referring to how the term was used in the book from the very beginning. You even acknowledged this. You can try reading it again. I'd ask you to consult a dictionary to help, but I'm not sure if there is one up to the task.
Even going by your definition, you're going to need to show your work on ambiguous or misleading. It's very specific. It might be misleading to an idiot, so I guess it tracks that you would find it misleading. I think everyone with a couple of brain cells knows that if you are undocumented, then (excepting some weird edge cases) you are here illegally. But please, show me the people who don't actually understand this. I won't even hold you to the LOL Rich Muny standard of proof.
Maybe, you might find some idiots like yourself out there, but since we're in this thread, do you think anyone (besides possibly you) is mislead by the term. If not, then where exactly is the misleading?
It is a precise and indisputable description. I'll give you euphemistic (but in the book, newspeak is far more than just that), but like I said I don't object to illegal alien and I don't dispute that is perfectly accurate as well. Feel free to use it as often as you like. I won't complain. If you think that's the position of a propagandist, then you might want to look that word up too.
It's proven, bro. California has a shoplifting problem. Everyone here knows it. Everyone everywhere knows it.
Your claim that you proved that less intelligent people tended to vote for Trump is also wrong. You may think it. You may believe it. But you didn't prove it. It's just your opinion.
I love it.
Rich Muny: You haven't proven that dumber people vote Trump. We're gonna need IQ tests on both groups and we need to find a statistically significant difference. Then this needs to be shown in MULTIPLE studies. And even then we can't believe it because such studies would only be done by biased libs. Sorry, you haven't proven it.
Also Rich Muny: Obviously CA has a worse shoplifting problem than Texas and it is because Texas punishes them more harshly. I don't need to show any studies or stats on incidence, prosecution rates or arrest rates. And LOL statistical significance, who needs that! Everyone knows it. Therefore it is proven.
I am Rich Muny, I "deal in facts".
Bravo!
So we're moving into outright gaslighting. Brilliant. Do you literally not understand what a dictionary is?
You also boldly lie that undocumented is precise when you literally admitted to using it to group documented and undocumented people together. The misleading aspect is that "undocumented" refers to the specific existence of legal immigration documentation. Most people don't understand that which is why it is misleading. But you don't even know the meaning of the word as per your specific example.
You can't possibly be this stupid. But you can be this dishonest.
I love it.
Rich Muny: You haven't proven that dumber people vote Trump. We're gonna need IQ tests on both groups and we need to find a statistically significant difference. Then this needs to be shown in MULTIPLE studies. And even then we can't believe it because such studies would only be done by biased libs. Sorry, you haven't proven it.
Also Rich Muny: Obviously CA has a worse shoplifting problem than Texas and it is because Texas punishes them more harshly. I don't need to show any studi
I linked twelve articles detailing California's shoplifting crisis. You posted bupkis showing Trump voters to be "dumber people."
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?”
― George Orwell
So I'm genuinely curious. In an effort to avoid 4chan levels of confusion about whiteness (essentially small white v big white, IE are people from the Caucuses white?), lets assume that we are talking about big white. When you see someone mocha colored do you assume he's a dagestani rebel or do you just kinda shrug and move on?
If we look to noted luminaries of antiracist theory, the first step to being less racist is to identify racism which is impossible without being able to identify one's rac
The "racial" definition I have always appreciated the most is "Arab." Only a tiny % of people who self identify as Arab actually have ancestors who at some point lived in Arabia. Most "Arabs" are just people that were conquered and decided to join the conquering tribe and relinquish their previous identity; and non Arabs of Middle Eastern lineage are basically people who were conquered but retained some level of their previous identity.
Melk, you can do all the statistical and mental gymnastic you want to convince yourself that big blue cities in CA dont have a shoplifting problem. But for the rest of us; we walk through a drug store in Los Angeles and San Francisco, see everything is locked up, see cornerstone vendors across the street selling obviously stolen merchandise from said store, and just aren't smart enough to convince ourselves this doesn't indicate a shoplifting problem*.
*It obviously goes without saying the suburbs where me and Melk live have much less dysfunction than big blue CA cities themselves; where poor minorities bear most of the brunt of the political dysfunction.
The "racial" definition I have always appreciated the most is "Arab." Only a tiny % of people who self identify as Arab actually have ancestors who at some point lived in Arabia. Most "Arabs" are just people that were conquered and decided to join the conquering tribe and relinquish their previous identity; and non Arabs of Middle Eastern lineage are basically people who were conquered but retained some level of their previous identity.
Had to look this up, but completely baffling:
If you got sand and Allah, you're an Arab.
That being said it is interesting how the dysfunction in Los Angeles or San Francisco creates such a visceral disgust reaction in "normies" as opposed to say the dysfunction of rural Arkansas; when obviously 99% of normies would choose to live in Los Angeles versus rural Arkansas in a vacuum. So the criticism of progressivism does not appear to be entirely rationale.
Circling back to Orwell, I think a couple quotes (one of them recycled from the last post) elucidate what is going on:
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
--At some unconscious level I think normies internalize that the overarching goal of progressivism is to tear down society itself (in theory to build something better).
And minus some minority of people that have a psychological predispositions towards progressivism and sufficient environmental conditioning; this triggers some lizard brain conservative survival mechanism of repulsion that isn't entirely rationale, especially in the modern environment.
I think we see this most strongly in pushback against progressive gender ideology; which is perhaps not surprising, as such axioms likely violate some strongly selected hardwiring in respect to sexual dimorphism and gender roles.
