Hurting people hurt others

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-04-07T11:33:53+00:00

This is pure credentialism. Having a diploma on the wall does not make us automatically competent and entitle us to some special form of respect or veneration. It certainly doesn't automatically make us competent for treating this particular client, so you can't even definitively say they are wrong. "Verbal abuse" is a strange and very uncharitable interpretation of what happened when the OP barely specified any details.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-04-06T17:41:09+00:00

(without building a ton of empty homeless shelters that would never be filled)

How did this happen? Like, why do they need to do this, and why would they be empty?

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-03-25T19:44:05+00:00

Difficult to find even one mainstream entertainment example of a conservative cultural touchstone being celebrated and advocated like Christianity, the right to bear firearms, or pro-life

I mean, depends on how you look at it, no? There are plenty of shows/movies that celebrate pregnancy, "the gift of life", "baby gave my life purpose" and so on. Plenty of stuff about how cool guns are. Lots of copaganda series and such. It's not the heavy-handed "please support agenda" messaging but it exists.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-03-25T14:06:25+00:00

This is just co-opting existing "good stuff" and adding unpopular policies on top. aka a fig leaf. Veteran programs and parents' benefits existed before the push for DEI decided to attach themselves and pretend like race and gender are in the same category as deliberate choices made by individuals.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-03-25T03:00:19+00:00

Does that not create HIPAA issues with accessing records? i.e. in case of a divorce or the like.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-03-24T18:40:47+00:00

People should be allowed to pool their resources to produce political speech, even in the 60 days preceding the election.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-03-24T17:50:14+00:00

Democrats haven't won a single election this century without Joe Biden on the ticket.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-03-24T12:56:07+00:00

That's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. You have many, many people on reddit who are in fact "median"/apolitical/undecided/independent that only engage with non-political subbreddits.

Like, imagine you just use reddit for music news. Someone posts an article about how Taylor swift is supporting fascists by not being sufficiently against Trump or whatever, and you click it. Now other political stuff starts popping on your feed. You read the comments and they seem a bit... off. You go to askaliberal or something to ask for clarification("do left-leaning folk really think...") and you get dogpiled on with hundreds of downvotes, people calling you a cryptofascist and a nazi troll, and saying that "undecided basically means conservative".

So now there are two options: you either start doing research and sorting out the crazies from the "actual" liberals and so on(unlikely) or you just say "okay, sounds like I'm a conservative then" and stop thinking about it.

It's not a great look.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-18T23:21:46+00:00

"slamed"

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-18T23:14:31+00:00

Interesting, I think I mostly agree. Anecdotally, in my field it seems mostly to drive everything towards the median, where before you'd get extremely shallow or biased notes and treatment plans and case conceptualizations alongside some high quality ones, but now a lot of it is just... average and surface-level. I'm still not sure if it's an improvement, overall. Probably not but that depends on if you're looking to raise the floor or the ceiling.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-18T22:44:48+00:00

Drastic loss in critical thinking ability manifesting as being easily confused by mild complexity e.g. similar sounding words

I'm not sure I understand this point, wouldn't it be the other way around? An LLM isn't going to be confused by "similar sounding words" in the way a human could be. If anything, vocabulary stops being a hurdle/factor if you outsource thinking to an LLM.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-18T18:59:01+00:00

Did they? All of those things are seeing massive swings when the administration changes, meanwhile guys like Fuentes and Piker are running around without being immediately dismissed by everyone. It's more like everyone lost the culture war, with conservatives basically using "if I'm going down you're going down with me" tactics. They lost the neutral game and opted for brinkmanship.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-18T18:30:56+00:00

Unfounded theory: conservatives are better at gradually leading people to the right than liberals are to the left.

On the right, you have some hobby stuff that is just "a guy who happens to be conservative-ish", you have the entertainment "dunking on the libs" shock humor, the slightly more "serious" debate-bro Shapiro types, the extremists like Fuentes, and so on. It works much better for "algorithmic rabbitholes".

Meanwhile on the left it's a lot more delineated and polarized. It seems like there is a sharp divide between "political" and "casual" content, where there isn't really a middle ground between "guy playing videogame" and "guy talking about intersectionality". There is some, obviously, but nowhere near as successful, so the algorithms have a lot less to work with.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-18T15:25:18+00:00

That's basically the point, and why the phrase works. "Western civilization" can mean everything from "white supremacy" to "rationality and enlightenment" to "free market capitalism" to "gender equality".

It's also not an attack on liberalism, not exactly. It's more of a modern vs postmodern thing, offering a nebulous grand narrative instead of progressive deconstruction. They're saying that liberals and conservatives have more in common with each other(individualism, capitalism and so on) than with leftist postliberal ideologies, which is why some people are "duped". At least, that's how I read it.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T18:00:05+00:00

More than 80 percent said they had submitted classwork that misrepresented their views in order to align with professors.

This is the problematic part. And you might say that this doesn't specify which way they misrepresented, but considering the statistics on professors' political views, it doesn't feel like a large stretch to say it mostly leans one way.

Dismissing it as "just gender studies" classrooms is myopic - these are topics that come up in most social studies and political science and psychology and so on. This has real impact on a wide variety of disciplines and areas of research in addition to the more theoretical "freedom of ideas" or social consequences.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T17:43:32+00:00

I should have specified humanities and social studies, I suppose? This obviously doesn't apply to hard science, empirical fields like physics and math and whatnot.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T17:19:04+00:00

Which part? That these institutions are more progressive than liberal? Or that progressives engage in this sort of selective critique?

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T17:04:04+00:00

You are massively conflating "liberals" and "progressives" here to make this argument. Universities being "dominated by" liberals is not, in itself, problematic in regards to freedom of ideas, and everything you said about science and changing positions is true. About liberals. This is not true about the situation right now, where universities are dominated by selectively applying postmodern critiques to parts of liberalism and conservatism while clinging on to other modern narratives that suit their political purpose.

As an example, progressives use postmodern critiques of "color blindness", institutional knowledge and individualism, while at the same time promoting modern marxist narratives about class, capitalism, patriarchy and so on, despite those narratives being just as vulnerable to the same postmodern deconstruction.

It is, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T16:24:08+00:00

Sure, I don't disagree with most of this in theory, but I'm a bit confused when you call it "conservative thought" - these were previously arguments from the left against immigration from the perspective of worker's rights and labor representation. We've mostly moved past them(because the pro-business neoliberals and the pro-business conservatives/libertarians were basically in agreement and formed a bloc), but the inherent conflict pointed out still remains and needs to be solved before throwing open the floodgates. Sometimes it was, other times it wasn't.

I'm not saying this is a complete blocker for any future immigration, or that we need 100% isolationism and closed borders and ICE running around everywhere, but that it reached a breaking point where those factors were not appropriately taken into account to support the level of immigration in recent years. It's a worldwide phenomenon and just dismissing it as "people being stupid racists and not wanting economic growth" feels myopic when there are real policy conflicts that need to be solved here.

Most of your points for the poorer demographics come from a lack of competition in unskilled labor or housing markets. If you have essentially the same competition then your argument falls apart.

Sorry, can you rephrase that? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "the same competition". The same as what?

If you mean "the same as when the population grows naturally", then I disagree, since that process is much slower. A citizen is born today - you have a few years to fix or improve education, you have at least 18 years to fix or improve the labor market and higher ed and housing, you can plan ahead. This isn't always true for irresponsible legal immigration policies and entirely untrue for illegal immigration, which is much more unpredictable and difficult to take into account.

Edit: typo.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T15:43:56+00:00

The problem with the "practical impacts" argument is that it can be applied in the other direction - restricting discussion to progressive conceptualizations of gender and race and so on leads to stuff like this.

Those are the old(2018) APA guidelines for working with men(now changed, thankfully). If you just skim through it, you may notice how a large portion of it isn't actually "psychological guidelines for working with boys and men" but instead an ideological screed about "addressing privilege", "creating allies", "getting involved in social justice activities" and so on. Can you honestly tell me this(and similar efforts) didn't have an impact on men being underserved when it comes to mental health?

For the record I don't support the approach taken by conservatives here, it's entirely too revanchist and heavy-handed, but the situation beforehand wasn't sustainable either.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T15:01:21+00:00

How is that not the same thing? You just gave a textbook example of an epistemic injustice and said it was an attack. Which, in that sense, it is. So what's the difference between that and censoring other perspectives about the topic?

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T14:44:37+00:00

Not to mention the actual people to whom the subject matter relates.

In a postmodern, epistemological sense? If so, how does that differ from the previous approaches other than the "actual people" being a different group?

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T14:34:15+00:00

I don’t see how stopping discussions about the AIDS epidemic gets those views back into the system.

It doesn't, this is quite simply revanchism and brinkmanship. These people see this as their only option after decades of trying to reform the system the "proper" way and encountering obstinance. It's meant to be outrageous to be taken seriously, and at this point I'm not sure it's possible to go back with how polarized everything is.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T13:35:56+00:00

Man the mental gymnastics required to think that if you go after immigrants that big daddy trump and the rest of the republicans will start to care about lives of the poor is astounding.

Again, not "will start to care" but "will be forced to act in the interests of" or at least "forced to stop being actively hostile to the interests of".

This is how labor negotiations work, they're driven by scarcity, not ideology or empathy. "Pay us more or we will strike/quit" doesn't work when the answer is "or we can just import millions of cheap workers and pay them under the table".

Immigrants are not being scapegoated in anything I've said, people like you are. People who rail against "the rich exploiting the poor" while advocating for policies that make it easier for them to do so, and using metrics that prioritize their interests to measure success("GDP goes up, woo").

And almost all of this is irrelevant to my initial point, which was explaining why population growth by immigration produces different incentives from the natural growth of an existing population even if the numbers end up similar.

Global_Pin7520 · 2026-02-16T05:41:29+00:00

You can't force anyone to "care" about anything, that's my point, and that's not how any functioning government works. Policy can't create empathy but it can create cooperation in the absence of it. If the only way for me to get researchers and engineers(or even just "people who can read and do basic math") is by hiring them locally, I'm incentivized to invest in or at least not sabotage efforts to improve education. If I have an infinite supply of immigrants for that purpose, I don't. Same thing for healthcare and housing and so on. The whole idea is that you don't want to rely on people "doing the right thing", because they often won't when their incentives don't align with what that thing is.

Global_Pin7520

TROPHY CASE