Random thought of the day
-
@loopback0 It's over one thousssaaaannnd!
-
@pie_flavor Then again, isn't that the usual defense? "Oh, I wasn't racist, I was using that ironically!"
At some point the difference between the two becomes so small that
ε < 0.And I find it funny that you posit that "almost none of them think that way in real life" when in the same paragraph you also state that "they have total anonymity". How exactly would you know that?
-
@Rhywden said in Random thought of the day:
@pie_flavor Then again, isn't that the usual defense? "Oh, I wasn't racist, I was using that ironically!"
I don't think so, no. I've never seen anyone who's verifiably, genuinely racist say that he's just saying racist things ironically.
And I find it funny that you posit that "almost none of them think that way in real life" when in the same paragraph you also state that "they have total anonymity". How exactly would you know that?
The same way you "know" they're racist.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Compare it to 1488 - an actual nazi symbol that is used by nazis to identify each other and spread their message.
I've never heard of the 14 part.
Guess that's because we only have the originals and not the cheap copies?
-
@topspin said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Compare it to 1488 - an actual nazi symbol that is used by nazis to identify each other and spread their message.
I've never heard of the 14 part.
Average number of letters per word in Hitler's speeches.
-
@Gąska Are you joking? I mean, nazis are crazy but that seems far fetched.
Internet says “14 words” is code for the American neo-nazi motto.Filed under: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Ticket
-
A YouTube video I've been watching had a very interesting observation: on a 7-segment display, 4 uses 4 segments, 5 uses 5 segments, and 6 uses 6 segments.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@topspin said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Compare it to 1488 - an actual nazi symbol that is used by nazis to identify each other and spread their message.
I've never heard of the 14 part.
Average number of letters per word in Hitler's speeches.
Bullshit, there aren't any German words that short
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
A YouTube video I've been watching had a very interesting observation: on a 7-segment display, 4 uses 4 segments, 5 uses 5 segments, and 6 uses 6 segments.
The Chinese characters for the numbers one, two and three consist of one, two and three horizontal strokes respectively.
Back in the 1960s, I remember a page-filler item in Reader's Digest that gave illustrations of the digits one through nine where each consisted of the appropriate number of line segments. Can't seem to Google a graphic of it, but naturally the seven looked ridiculously complicated.
-
@Gąska It's called "irony poisoning".
The same way you "know" they're racist.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck over an extended period of time, reasoning suggests that it is a duck.
But actually y'know, I was attacking his opinion that their real-life persona was different from the online one. That's where his defense came from. I only showed that it's not very much of a defense because his premise rests on faulty logic.
-
@Rhywden said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska It's called "irony poisoning".
This article is so pretentious and far-fetching, there's just so much wrong with it - but due to the topic, I won't discuss it outside garage, and I know you don't read garage so I won't post there either.
The same way you "know" they're racist.
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck over an extended period of time, reasoning suggests that it is a duck.
Or it might be mimic octopus. On the internet, there's a whole lot of mimic octopi. Just open any large subreddit dedicated to sharing life stories and see how many fake stories there are.
But actually y'know, I was attacking his opinion that their real-life persona was different from the online one. That's where his defense came from. I only showed that it's not very much of a defense because his premise rests on faulty logic.
Well, your logic isn't any better. This "irony poisoning" sounds very similar to the "video games make people violent" thing.
-
There are a lot of psychological experiments that show that people pretending to be/do a thing for long periods of time will find it easier to believe in that thing ('fake it until you make it' is a positive application of that). It doesn't guarantee that they will, but it is there. And people who believe in that racism etc is okay will definitely hide amongst (really firefox? you don't have "amongst" in your dictionary?) those doing it only for the irony and try to convince people it's more than irony.
People being ironic racists and people being actual racists are very hard to tell apart from a distance and I have negative reason to try to make that distinction.
-
On a scale of 1:10, what is your favorite color of the alphabet?
-
@Tsaukpaetra 11
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Random thought of the day:
On a scale of 1:10, what is your favorite color of the alphabet?
Peppermint.
-
@Tsaukpaetra Rhamphorhynchus!
It's like you don't even know me.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Random thought of the day:
On a scale of 1:10, what is your favorite color of the alphabet?
Nil.
-
@da-Doctah said in Random thought of the day:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Random thought of the day:
On a scale of 1:10, what is your favorite color of the alphabet?
Nil.
The instruction at 0x00171755 referenced memory at 0x00000000. The memory could not be red.
Click Reply to not terminate the thread.
-
-
@Rhywden said in Random thought of the day:
@pie_flavor Then again, isn't that the usual defense? "Oh, I wasn't racist, I was using that ironically!"
At some point the difference between the two becomes so small that
ε < 0.Except...someone would actually have to do it. Which they weren't, except that it was already a thing people did for other reasons...for decades at least. They just posted stuff saying, "Racists do
."
-
@boomzilla 4chan people do a lot of DEUS VULT etc. That absolutely is racist and white supremacist. It's just a joke, but a racist joke nonetheless.
-
@Gąska fair enough. But that's not the phenomenon we're talking about. I've never hung out there so I'll have to take your word on what's normal there. Honestly, I don't even know what 'DEUS VULT' is.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Nudists don't seem to suffer from the original sin of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It looks like they have a head start to heaven.
No, that's not the original sin.
@Tsaukpaetra said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
. It looks like they have a head start to heaven.
Right?!? I've always wondered what exactly was sinful about the "naked" human body...
Inherently? Nothing. AIUI, the sinfulness involves being uncharitable by trying to incite (or being unconcerned about inciting) others to lust/jealousy and/or by inciting lust in oneself through exhibitionism.
And what the actual difference between "nude" and "naked" is.
Intentions. It possibly depends on one's upbringing, culture, environment, and current situation, but if there is a distinction to be made, then nude is public exhibitionism and naked is simply being unclothed.
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Nudists don't seem to suffer from the original sin of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It looks like they have a head start to heaven.
No, that's not the original sin.
Then what was it, if not disobeying God's prohibition of eating the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge?
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
Nudists don't seem to suffer from the original sin of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It looks like they have a head start to heaven.
No, that's not the original sin.
Then what was it, if not disobeying God's prohibition of eating the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge?
The original sin was arrogance that they could be like God and decide for themselves what is right and wrong (i.e. they believed the lie that the serpent told them). That immediately resulted in disobeying God's prohibition, but the original sin was already done by that point and so the disobedience was compounding the error. It's a bit of a subtle distinction, and would mostly be of interest to only theologians and nitpickers. Honestly, it doesn't make much difference at what exact point Adam and Eve sinned, because the fact is that they did, and passed that problem down to all of us.
-
@boomzilla 'Deus vult' means 'God wills it'. It's a phrase historically associated with the Crusades, and is used nowadays in an ironic proposition to start the Crusades up again.
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
Honestly, it doesn't make much difference at what exact point Adam and Eve sinned, because the fact is that they did, and passed that problem down to all of us.
And now people who have nothing to do with them get punished for what they have done. A fair and just god, for sure.
-
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@boomzilla 'Deus vult' means 'God wills it'. It's a phrase historically associated with the Crusades, and is used nowadays in an ironic proposition to start the Crusades up again.
You're very committed to this "it's just irony" thing. Irony can catch up with you if you overdose on it. It's ironic when that happens too.
-
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
Honestly, it doesn't make much difference at what exact point Adam and Eve sinned, because the fact is that they did, and passed that problem down to all of us.
And now people who have nothing to do with them get punished for what they have done. A fair and just god, for sure.
No, we all do exactly the same thing. You just did it here by implying that it's unfair and that God is unfair and unjust because of it. And then, adding on top of it all the ways that we disobey God and violate His moral laws, there's nothing unfair about receiving punishment for what we have each done.
By the way, on a related note, the passage where God says that He will "visit the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate [Him]" isn't about punishing the kids for their parents' sins; it's about looking in the kids' lives to see if they're repeating their parents' sins, and so then the punishment is for their own violations.
-
@djls45 Right and wrong != fair and unfair.
-
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
and is used nowadays in an ironic proposition to start the Crusades up again.
Ah. That's the part I didn't know.
@Gribnit said in Random thought of the day:
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@boomzilla 'Deus vult' means 'God wills it'. It's a phrase historically associated with the Crusades, and is used nowadays in an ironic proposition to start the Crusades up again.
You're very committed to this "it's just irony" thing. Irony can catch up with you if you overdose on it. It's ironic when that happens too.
Yeah. People should stop being apologetic for the Crusades.
-
@Gribnit said in Random thought of the day:
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@boomzilla 'Deus vult' means 'God wills it'. It's a phrase historically associated with the Crusades, and is used nowadays in an ironic proposition to start the Crusades up again.
You're very committed to this "it's just irony" thing. Irony can catch up with you if you overdose on it. It's ironic when that happens too.
-
@Gąska You might say it was really a BS degree.
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
You just did it here by implying that it's unfair and that God is unfair and unjust because of it
And you're implying that is's a sin to call an unfair god unfair.
Not saying that you're wrong, according to your concept of sin, just that that concept sucks.
-
@topspin said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
You just did it here by implying that it's unfair and that God is unfair and unjust because of it
And you're implying that is's a sin to call an unfair god unfair.
Imagine a god that didn't make it a sin to insult them.
-
@topspin said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
You just did it here by implying that it's unfair and that God is unfair and unjust because of it
And you're implying that is's a sin to call an unfair god unfair.
Not saying that you're wrong, according to your concept of sin, just that that concept sucks.If our sense of fairness, justice, and goodness is ultimately based in and on God's (and I believe it is), then trying to say that God is unjust or unfair (and implying by that that He is bad) is a logically untenable position to hold.
And to be clear, I believe that God is, in fact, unfair, but in almost exactly the opposite way that was implied. We all ought to be immediately cast into Hell for our own sins, but God is "unfairly" merciful and grants us time to discover and recognize our errors. Then, in His grace, He "unfairly" offers us a restoration back to Himself by "unfairly" putting all our sins on Jesus, His only begotten Son and the only absolutely innocent human.
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@topspin said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
You just did it here by implying that it's unfair and that God is unfair and unjust because of it
And you're implying that is's a sin to call an unfair god unfair.
Not saying that you're wrong, according to your concept of sin, just that that concept sucks.If our sense of fairness, justice, and goodness is ultimately based in and on God's (and I believe it is), then trying to say that God is unjust or unfair (and implying by that that He is bad) is a logically untenable position to hold.
Yours maybe, mine’s not.
-
@djls45 Either that, or all the shit that we've been saying that sounds like it makes sense actually does make sense, and He's just a colossal dick for no reason.
-
@topspin @pie_flavor
Then you have a vastly different idea of what kind of being God is than I do.
Because the sort of God you describe is one that I would whole-heartedly reject as much as (or maybe even more than) you do.
-
@djls45 Good thing you're not allowed to check to make sure He is that kind of god, then.
-
Hm -- are things good and bad because God thinks they are, or does God think they're good and bad because they actually are good and bad?
This position gets pretty hard to hold in either case, IMHO, but I'm openminded!
-
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 Good thing you're not allowed to check to make sure He is that kind of god, then.
What do you mean?
-
@zekka said in Random thought of the day:
Hm -- are things good and bad because God thinks they are, or does God think they're good and bad because they actually are good and bad?
This position gets pretty hard to hold in either case, IMHO, but I'm openminded!
I would have to say, "Yes." Things are good because God created them to be in line with His character, and things are bad because they are distortions of good or are attempts to get something good in the wrong way. In other words, what God thinks are good or bad are actually good or bad, because as Creator, He gets to (and really has the only right to) define them.
I suppose that's closer to your first option.
-
@Gąska said in Random thought of the day:
I don't think so, no. I've never seen anyone who's verifiably, genuinely racist say that he's just saying racist things ironically.
hi, i am a jewish person who used to hang out on neo-nazi websites because i was in a very dark place and wanted to go places where people would hate me. i have several friends who did the same thing. i think i am an expert on this topic and pretty unbiased.
it's weird to me that when someone says "i believe this totally reprehensible thing," (usually something about race, sex, or gender) bystanders say:
- well, they obviously don't truly believe that
- but if they did, it would be their right to say it
- and who are you to criticize them for it?
it's not like people say "maybe they don't truly believe that" when someone, say, promotes the Spring framework. it seems to be limited to really awful views that are widely held in secret.
guys who are being ironically racist usually don't have a subtle or satirical edge. basically their schtick is to say the same things unironic racists believe. it's usually very, very, very transparent! there's usually no joke and they usually nakedly appeal to lies that are widely believed by racists, in a way that implies those lies are true.
they have a strong incentive to say that the racism is ironic, because they would not be treated kindly if they actually held those views. if you respond by trying to refute those views (or in general in a way that implies the views aren't true) they tend to take hazy defensive stances that "i don't believe it, but i bet you can't prove me wrong" or try to call you smelly or say you're no fun. in other words, they react like the thing they said is embarrassing but they still want to defend it.
i get that some of these people may have tone-deaf imitators who don't see themselves as racists, and i agree that 4chan culture encourages this kind of thing, but i really see this as the minority. when ironic racism is directed at you, it doesn't feel ironic, and ironic racists tend to project tons of obvious signs that they actually want other people to believe their racism
imho the only reason people continue to say they can't tell racism is serious is because there is practically no ironic racism, but people continue to insist ironic racism exists online. so people who want to give others the benefit of the doubt assume they just can't see the differentiators.
analogy: suppose you live in australia and your goal is to find a vampire bat. you can check as many bats as you want, but you won't find one because they don't live in Australia. that doesn't mean you should change the definition of "vampire bat" to include fruit bats with particularly large teeth.
it also doesn't mean that the vampire-ness of a bat is an ephemeral characteristic that's only visible to experienced batfinders. if you found a real vampire bat it would be super obvious. but when someoen acts as if someone who says racist things needs to be "verifiably, genuinely racist" they're acting as if it's ephemeral and you just can't tell-- as if just defending racist ideas using lies believed by racists isn't sufficient evidence
i would encourage people who say they can't tell ironic and unironic racism apart to instead just say "if i can't tell it's ironic, it's probably unironic." imho you need to do tons of special pleading and stuff to seriously defend the idea that it's secretly ironic. having people misinterpret your racist joke as actual racism is an occupational hazard of being a person who tells racist jokes -- it's your fault if you say "i hate jews" and you get banned for hating jews
-
I've had people be racist to me and around me. It's rarely subtle and they'll usually tell you that they're racist.
-
@djls45 hm. do you think God could decree arbitrary different things to be good, or are there certain things God could (or would) never decree to be good?
-
The religion thread is
-
@Benjamin-Hall yeah, this is part of why it's weird to me when people still insist on calling it "ironic." it's usually really, really overt, and people still call it ironic!
i think there is still such a thing as non-overt racism, but the defense of saying "it's ironic" is apparently very powerful, so people keep doing the overt version.
-
@djls45 said in Random thought of the day:
@pie_flavor said in Random thought of the day:
@djls45 Good thing you're not allowed to check to make sure He is that kind of god, then.
What do you mean?
If you question whether He's a dick or not, then you've committed a most grievous sin, yes?
https://static.nytimes.com/email-content/INT_4981.html
