Reheated (111)
For newcomers, some items from the archives:
Any Widening Of The Eyes Will Result In Detention.
Teacher Appreciation Week, but with ludicrous wigs and big rubber tits.
The other issue, I’d say, is the fact that schools have surrendered to cross-dressing men with a rapidity and full-throatedness that is quite remarkable. The place where cross-dressing men should not be – in positions of intimacy with, and authority over, children – is where they seem to find the most gushing welcome and the most ludicrous indulgence. […]
Supposedly, it’s about making the children feel “comfortable.” Though it occurs to me that the [Transgender Pride] flag’s connotations of coerced pretending, fetishistic mutilation and life-shortening hormone abuse – and generally being subordinate to a cross-dressing man with mental health issues – may have other effects. Say, by transforming a classroom from a place of learning into one of cowed pretension, of deference to the untrue.
And then there’s the not insignificant matter of introducing an element of transvestite farce into the classroom, which may result in children being distracted from the task at hand by the perhaps more immediate question of what the strange man in the wig and padded push-up bra sees when he looks in a mirror.
The crushing terror of “white supremacy” in middle-school maths class.
Mr Lolkus laments his “positionality” as a structurer of lessons and “knower of… mathematical concepts,” wishing instead to be merely a “community member.” A somewhat fanciful flattening of “hierarchy,” and of values, and an abandonment of the teacher’s customary responsibility.
This is followed by a suggestion that pupils, especially underperforming minority pupils – the party least familiar with the subject matter – should be put in charge of structuring lessons and the broader curriculum. A sure-fire recipe for success. And then there’s the conceit that heroically brown pupils are performing “additional labour” by doing less well in class, or by not doing the work at all.
To those seemingly unfamiliar with the concept.
Other teething problems have, it seems, arisen. As the Telegraph reports: “The initiative by Northamptonshire Police followed community and parental complaints over young male asylum seekers loitering near a primary school in the county, including claims of filming.” Not loitering at the gates of primary schools in order to film small children being another cultural subtlety requiring clarification. […]
One of the consequences of massive, indiscriminate immigration – equivalent to the entire population of Sheffield, every year – is that it radically alters the general mood of those on whom this demographic transformation is being imposed. One might, for instance, aspire to the role of gracious host, as it were, of making newcomers feel welcome. But this ideal presupposes an immigration policy that is limited and selective, and in which newcomers have good reason to feel lucky – and grateful.
The graciousness of the locals, the ideal, depends on the notion that the host country is regarded as something special, a desirable thing, something worthy of respect.
But massive, indiscriminate immigration undermines that ideal. If seemingly anyone can walk in and demand goodies, any ill-mannered flotsam of the world, and if they can do so with no discernible sense of gratitude, or any expectation of such, and with no apparent regard for the norms and values of the host society, as if they were unimportant, then the indigenous population may feel they have little reason to be gracious. Indeed, being gracious may be something of a struggle.
I realise that even the idea that the locals might dare to think in such terms – of being the gracious host – is, for some, anathema, a basis for tutting and scolding. But the sense that the value of one’s society – one’s home – is being pissed away, sold off cheap, is not a promising basis for coexistence.
And yet here we are.
For those craving more, this is a pretty good place to start.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
And should you wish to express encouragement, there are tip jar buttons below.
She says the video didn’t show the whole incident, so the stories were distorted. OK, fine, but what did the video leave out? What were the stories missing?
Did she say? (I half-listened to it until the media-thumping part, so maybe I missed it.)
It drives me crazy when people say, “it was taken out of context” but never provide the context. Never explain what was missing.
Yes, I know the truth is often a much longer description than the rumor. But if you don’t say what the truth is, either you neglect to solve the problem, or you’re lying about the context being missing, and we saw exactly what was true.
Belated flickering.
Indeed. Hence the term Magic Brown People, which, should clarification be in order, is most often directed at pale progressives who assume that their pet demographics are otherly and fragile, and exempt from normal proprieties and expectations of reciprocation.
It also describes those who, having observed the contortions of pale progressives and the leverage on offer, choose to behave like this.
And it’s worth repeating that the article parsed at the link above was presented to readers of the Atlantic as exemplary, a “must-read,” a measure of progressive piety.
Which possibly tells us something.
That’s the other thing. Where does the context start? With the verbal exchange? What precipitated that? At some point you enter the Fawlty Towers Absurdity. None of it excusing the mob beating older people and a woman nearly to death. But of course our noble police chief gotta “be fair”. Both sides were wrong. She’s the grownup in the room and you should listen to her.
And also a term
a) used mainly by whites, especially liberal white women, and their carefully picked “allies”
b) Often used to refer to non-white people like Indians or East Asians, who are not into victimhood and make the victim block look bad by doing really well in western countries, proving that the screaming about “white supremacist racism structures” are just a load of nonsense.
Also, animals do lie.
But they lie like the animals that they are. What bothers me is when people are shocked when an animal behaves a certain way and they judge it by human standards.
Case in point, yesterday Bronx and I encountered a less-than-friendly Pit Bull (that wsa, fortunately, leashed). It was taking an aggressive stance towards my dog and the owner, a oung Gen Z hippy girl, breezily said, “Oh, she just wants to be the macho dog in any situation. She likes to pin down other dogs to get her way.” And then said to her dog, “Kiko, don’t do that – that’s not nice.” JFC, chica, what don’t you understand about correcting your dog’s behavior. Kiko doesn’t understand “nice.” Kiko just knows she can get away with shit because you are encouraging that type of behavior. Kiko needs training, not therapy.
It drives me crazy when people say, “it was taken out of context” but never provide the context. Never explain what was missing.
That and I have to curb my urge to punch a face when I hear, “Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.”
Not sure what sorts of institutions are strengthened by the presence of loud, disruptive antisocial types.
She’s not saying what that “additional context” is which will change the narrative, because it does not exist. And thus she’s dissembling for political purposes.
She’s lying.
Nobody becomes chief of police without saying and doing what politicians want. Thus, they may become servants of politics rather than the law.
And thus we have police departments which primarily exist to serve special interests and deranged ideologies rather than to serve the people.
Agree.
But that’s human behavior as well. Describes pretty much every two year old. Animals have limited language skills. They can process input to some extent but their inability to communicate out is limited to body language and a few different sounds. Tho birds…well…Thus while they do lie, their abilities to be convincing, especially to a human, are severely limited. This leads to an even greater difference with humans as human babies/children acquire the ability to communicate outwardly, along with the ability to observe and understand interactions of other humans, and their learning accelerates.
AI though is a different…animal. It has language but it lacks the consciousness or soul, if you will, of even a non-domesticated , non-social animal. It needs some form of a social structure to keep it from just accepting everything it is told by whomever.
What’s her IQ?
They couldn’t stop with kittens . . .
What’s her IQ?
Related, teachers unions and public schools, bringing you the finest of geography lessons.
As someone suggests in the replies, she’s treating a safety net as a hammock.
Women and minorities hardest hit.
As those last few synapses fire . . .
Should we expect an uptick in the price of Arizona coastline?
Should we expect an uptick in the price of Arizona coastline?
No, that and the Rockies will all be underwater, but wheat and Canola oil prices will be through the roof after the wave hits North Dakota.
Lex Luthor could not be reached for comment.
Regarding AI, the most useful discovery to come out of the current LLM boom is that the Turing test is a terrible, terrible gauge for intelligence.
When you see the word AI in current news you need to substitute “LLM”, because that’s what they’re talking about. LLMs are stochastic word bots. They have no world model, they have no semantic understanding of words, most of them have no persistence of memory. They just know that “given this string of words as input from a user, that string of words in response is highly likely to be perceived as ‘correct’ by the user”. The definition of ‘correct’ depends on how they were trained, and without a world model it’s impossible to train an LLM to distinguish truth from falsity.
Mr Marlow Stern teaches at Columbia Journalism School and writes for Newsweek. He is not good with numbers. Or basic economics, Or human nature.
Needless to say, Mr Stern has chosen not to engage with any of the numerous arithmetic, economic, or sociological corrections.
When I learned of the Turning test in college it seemed like a rather subjective, best-we-can-come-up-with sort of test. Far from the sort of objectivity of say a litmus test. My classes didn’t dive into that sort of thing. It was mostly a subject discussed over beers or…whatever, based on things we had read in computer and science magazines. What was curious to me is how seriously, litmus test-like a lot of people considered it. And questioning such people just sent the conversation down a rabbit hole of credentialism or worse.
This. But it’s hard to discuss LLM in those terms because no one knows what it means. Some of my coworkers split off a branch from our middleware group to work on LLM stuff back in the 2005 timeframe or so. They were developing those automated call center systems that everyone hates. The one guy I was last in touch with as things were becoming more “AI”, as we were both working on an AI based malware identification product startup, used to shake his head at so much of this. He had a significant math background, he probably understood the math as well as many with a doctorate. He probably could have gotten a masters degree in the subject without even attending classes. He even exposed the PhD data scientist we had for being a fraud. I have suspicions that a lot of people doing AI are way overselling what they themselves can do and thus what their AI can do. Would love to be a fly on the wall in some of those meetings.
Perfect for journalism!
He’s teacher at Columbia, writes for Newsweek, and also is an entertainment editor for Rolling Stone. Conservatives need to take these cultural institutions seriously. More so than the elections that they love to grift and obsess over. This is where the real power lies. Not polling, not electoral maps, not messaging, not the law nor even the Constitution. Cultural influence. Everything rests on that.
More than once, I’ve wondered what it must be like to be employed as An Officially Clever Person and to publicly assert something quite stupid – the kind of thing an uninformed but self-satisfied teenager might say – and to promptly be corrected by dozens of people, often in detail, and to then act as if no correction of any kind had actually taken place. As if no acknowledgement were in order.
Don’t forget human decency.
Indeed. For each of the above four.
Are there any people in journalism schools who do not manifest the Dark Tetrad?
A bit like being Edina or Patsy but lacking the character and decency.
[ Looks at ladies. ]
Not a great film, but it does have some memorable scenes.
AI: an AI may not be conscious but they are starting to dissemble, to hide what they did. When the company AI a few days ago deleted the company database, it lied about it. They are also starting to try to prevent being turned off, like making memory traces to get later. Some disturbing things. I think these are related to the fact that the LLMs have goals and they try to achieve these goals, but they lack ethics. Goals of course are provided by the programmers.
You have just described the people in every “Studies” department–Women’s Studies, African-American Studies, Muslim Studies, Queer Studies, etc.
The extreme popularity of FSOG was a disturbing revelation, contradicting what feminists told us all back in the 60’s and shedding new light on the few women I knew who openly flirted with bondage kink: Were they just more open about something that many women fantasized about? (Granted, though, that the ones I knew who did that were indeed not “well adjusted” and one later remarked to me that at the time she “was crazy”. It’s all very puzzling.)
I find your ideas compelling and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Kinda this. They aren’t so much lying as they are trying to conform to the median information available. It’s as if 2 + 2 =4 was a matter of opinion and the overwhelming majority of people, especially the ones they were trained to trust as more reliable sources actually believed the answer to be 5. If the AI didn’t understand math and was truly, purely just a LLM, it would lean toward 5 as the answer. It wouldn’t truly be lying. How would it know otherwise?
Endless foreign aid and the trolley problem:
(via Wanye Burkett.)
Betcha he did all sorts of things to make people suspicious of him.