ttt0

No, this is exactly what my claim was. That the same criticism of racism applies to CRT too.

From CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-e...

> Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites.

I could say a very similar thing about the Jewish people and you'd call me an anti-semite for it.

Is this another case of redefining words and "anti-white" no longer means what I think it means or what? I'm confused.

edit: I'm rate limited, responding here.

> only in the sense that “White elites” are “elites, who are predominantly White” and not “Whites, who as a group are elites”.

No serious person claims that this or other ethnicity is an elite as a group, so I'm not sure what does it have to do with anything.

> Well, because factually socioeconomic elites (in America) aren't overwhelmingly Jewish

Biden's cabinet being 1/3 Jewish (pretty sure it was about half few months ago) is just one example. And they're like what, 2% of the US population? Is that just an antisemitic lie or is the US administration somehow not a part of systemic structure?

Once again, people are worried about CRT causing unintentional antisemitism, but no one cares if it's going to cause anti-white hatred, despite that the exact same argument was used against others who tried to explain why things are like this. It's completely transparent what it is and any sane person can see through this gaslighting. But it's alright, if you want to genocide each other then I guess it's none of my business, since I live on the other end of the world and it doesn't involve me personally. I'm not sure myself why I care so much, I clearly shouldn't. Now go ahead and crucify me.

I'm not a fan of CRT, but you're 100% right.

The issue with CRT is that every other theory and research of this subject (eg. IQ differences) has been shut down or obscured due to allegations of racism or fear of how society would react to such knowledge. And that poses a problem. You can't even propose any alternative theory in the current climate.

Second, the same criticism applies to CRT. There is a double standard. For the sake of simplicity, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it under the "Academic Criticism" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Academic

> Farber and Sherry additionally posit that the anti-meritocratic tenets in critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical legal studies may unintentionally lead to antisemitic and anti-Asian implications.

I don't think I have to explain to anyone why this theory would have any antisemitic or anti-Asian implications, everyone has to know it on some level. You might not necessarily agree with it, but you should know why. But the most interesting and telling thing about everything surrounding the CRT is what this criticism doesn't say. Nowhere does it even mention anti-White implications. Imagine reading something explicitly focused on the overrepresantation of Jewish people in positions of power and saying "wow, this could hurt some innocent Europeans".

I agree that the divisions are already here (and pretty much always have been for that matter), and that individualists are wrong in just pretending like the problem doesn't exist. But forcing this down everyone's throats without any possibility of defending yourself will only end up in a disaster.

You say you don't need discrimination to explain it, but your explanation assumes discrimination ie. you have to be really damn good in order to even have a chance as a woman. There is another explanation, the distribution of IQ between men and women:

> Another factor affecting perception may be distribution of IQ ... Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men. That is a pattern that we see in the university setting, with men either being at the very top of the class or at the bottom.

https://www.newsweek.com/men-women-and-iq-87117

Yes, it's illegal.

Nope. They did include GPL code.

> Once, GitHub Copilot suggested starting an empty file with something it had even seen more than a whopping 700,000 different times during training -- that was the GNU General Public License.

https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio...

Considering the fact that they're fact-checking stupid memes, I wouldn't be surprised.

YouTube striked white noise with a copyright claim: https://www.neowin.net/news/youtubes-algorithms-strike-white...

Minor correction, it wasn't a DM, it was a public tweet that had him tagged. Then his wife (or him pretending to be his wife) responded to the tweet from Eichenwald's account, that he just had a seizure and that she had called the police.

> I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet.

Look up Kurt Eichenwald. He found and sued an anonymous Twitter troll who send him a GIF "you deserve a seizure" in 2017. I'm not sure exactly how, I think the authorities helped him, so Twitter just might've gave them the information.

> For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself should clean up half this mess with existing laws.

And it should also enable going after people with unpopular opinions even more.

And preventing people from spreading disinformation doesn't mean that the disinformation will magically go away. It's just that the only people allowed to spread disinformation will be the government and the capitalists. And you will be punished if you call them out on it.

ShareBlue, CorrectTheRecord wasn't targeting just leftists.

Everyone does that since forever and this isn't limited to a single political affiliation or even politics at all. By now this is a standard practice and I hope this isn't news for anybody.

"Referring to the origin [...] of such groups" might be it, but yeah, "common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" alone doesn't make an ethnicity. I suspect the existence of ethnic groups will be denied too at some point, or labelled as "offensive".

If each color represents a particular heritable trait then it's more or less like that.

No, I disagree. Colors can be mixed together, so does that mean that the color blue does not exists? Can you point me where exactly blue starts and ends on a rainbow? Let's go even further, and take two mixed colors - purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow) - they're both mixed, so does that mean that there is no difference between those two? This is a fallacy. People might've mixed, but it doesn't make everyone the same. This is blatantly false. In the actual reality you just inherit some traits from one parent and some from the other. I'm not denying cultural differences obviously, but it does not contradict anything, it's just how genetics work. Race is just a superset of ethnicity, and it's more fuzzy around the edges.

There certainly are individuals who believe that, just like there are some Black individuals (Black nationalists/Israelites) who believe the exact opposite - that Whites are "inferior" and Blacks are "superior". But at core this really isn't what nationalist/separatist movements are about. It's that races are distinct both genetically and culturally - not inherently better or worse, just different - and incompatible with each other. Furthermore, if you look at the current and historic nationalist movements, the motivation is rarely (if ever) "we're superior, they're subhumans, why won't we just kill them", but perceived oppression from the other side.

> deliberately undermine a good candidate's chances of getting a job or promotion _because of their skin colour_

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. How do you feel about affirmative action?

I'm not quite sure if I understand what they're trying to do. Are they trying to say that it isn't just skin color? That's the entire point of "racism", that it's not just visible characteristics.

By the way, why there is no author?

Yeah, what's going on with this? If I did something wrong then just warn me first, because it comes out of nowhere and I have no idea what the hell is going on. How does it even work? Is it triggered automatically or what?

Hey dang, you mind explaining this?

If it's just cosmetic changes then not really. People can mod their copies, use their own models and remain compatible with others.

edit: I'm rate limited, responding here:

I just pointed out that versions don't have to be the same to play online. I remember people complaining that the releases were different, so I'm just asking.

What consent? We're talking about fictional characters here.

Is Dwarf Fortress an immoral game, because the authors are not a part of groups like dwarfs, elves and goblins? And some in-game events may occur without the consent of those characters?

edit: Got rate limited for some reason and can no longer respond, so I'm just going to edit this post:

What does the "consent from the group" even mean? Do you have to make a poll, write to the CEO of Women™ or something? Seriously. Can I even include women if I'm making an amateur video game as a one-man effort (no pun intended), and I myself am not a woman?

And for dragontamer, I guess you got your answer. I don't personally care about video games at all, but some people believe this is immoral and rape-like (no consent), so it's not surprising to me that someone calls it censorship and points out the parallels to back when people tried to censor violence in video games and whatnot.

edit2:

> You are free to make whatever game you want. The public is free to respond to your game however they want. You aren't going to get many complaints if you "even include women". If you objectify those women, you might get met with those complaints. If you were a women objectify women, you can at least claim that your are taking control of the objectification. That is viewed as a valid excuse by a lot of people much like how I mentioned people in a minority group are generally allowed to make jokes at that groups expense.

So I should take it as roughly "the consent from the group means that the group isn't going to cancel you"? But if that's the case then why is it called "consent"? Isn't the entire point of consent to ask before you take action? It's like saying "I'm going to force you to have sex with me, if you don't go to the police then it means you consented to it". And from my understanding that's literally what rape culture is.

> If a developer (lets say, Koei Tecmo games), decides to make a video game (such as Dead or Alive 6) slightly less sexy than a previous video game (such as Dead or Alive 5), is that "censorship" ??

Is it in all releases or just the US and European releases? I remember people complaining that just the Western releases of some games were censored.

What I find weird in our current status quo is how "sex work" and having an OnlyFans account is considered empowering, but a game about fictional characters like DOA is considered sexist and misogynist.

I never played it, so I might be wrong, but isn't that why people play DOA in the first place? To see sexy women? So how's that trolling?

> are perfectly content to pay for meat they know was the product of an industry which is pretty horrific in its treatment of billions of cows, pigs, etc. a year.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

What do you think happens to animals in the wilderness? Do you think they live a happy life, retire and have a peaceful death among the loved ones? The answer is no, they get brutally murdered by a bigger animal. Did you ever have a cat and witnessed how they can torture a mouse?

That's just the world we live in. I can't change it, and no one can, it's just how it works. Am I supposed to cry in the corner about this unfortunate reality? So yeah, I'm perfectly fine with killing animals for food, as long as it's not done in a dumb way ie. making them go extinct, or in some sadistic manner.

So I guess the answer to your question is that I try to have a realistic worldview and not just what sounds nice. The universe doesn't care about hypocrisy, morality or principles. It's really good to organize a society around it and it's good to have principles, because we have to somehow live with each other, but that's not what it's about.

I think it's just a hip new buzzword, like "disrupt the nuclear family", "disrupt white supremacy" etc

EULAs already often prohibit disassembling the binary. That feels completely crazy to me, it's like saying that you aren't allowed to press Ctrl-U on a website. Is it actually legally binding?

Absolutely, in the full context channel owners often have zero incentive to remove any comments and it makes zero sense for them to do so, so I believe them too. Most people are aware of what YouTube is doing by now, but once in a while you have someone who will blame it on the channel.

I already did the mistake of using Google account in Chrome back in the day and it turned out that they were stealing my saved passwords without any warning.

Copyright trolls are parasites, I would have a huge problem with them benefiting off my stuff even if I myself wouldn't make a dime on it. You can easily make arguments in favor of rental housing, usury and such, but there is absolutely no defense for this kind of behavior, I just find it immoral.