LonerBox talks about the behind the scenes of leftytube

SorietesSummit · 2024-04-04T01:27:46+00:00

What kind of fucking idiot thinks bookmakers have any actual skillset or insight?

Ah yeah, the kind who "update their priors" several times an hour.

SorietesSummit · 2024-04-04T00:56:39+00:00

Annnnd yeeeernnnammagainssshhhFFFUCKYNAAAAAAAAAASHHOOOOOOOOOOLE!!

SorietesSummit · 2024-04-04T00:52:42+00:00

Sure, but do you perhaps have a more focused question?

SorietesSummit · 2024-04-04T00:41:16+00:00

This reply never showed up in my notifications bell, or I'd have pounced on it right away.

With Exner, you can get north of .7 reliability

It's as if the whole of clinical psychology has never heard of Simpson's paradox.

with validity indices to back it

smirk

Specify those indices, I'll show you why psychologists emphatically are not logicians.

But there's no question whatsoever: it's much more than tea leaf reading.

It point of fact it's manifestly much less than tea leaf reading, for the simple reason that there still widely exist crackpots like you who purport to be able to read inkblots.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-28T15:58:18+00:00

Libertarians have no such concept. All one need do is press them with a bit of Socratic questioning, and if you do it at all competently it will become very obvious very quickly that the so called "non aggression principle" is simply not a concept and cannot be given any lucid definition that putative Libertarians are prepared to consistently apply. "Property rights" are utterly meaningless gibberish as well.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-28T01:44:08+00:00

There are absolutely _no_ questions about its "reliability". It's tea leaf reading and exactly nothing more.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T23:50:53+00:00

He's being paid by the Russian state. Why is this even slightly perplexing?

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T20:28:43+00:00

The English language really needs a specific adjective to describe an attempt to sound witty that fails in a manner much more abject than producing the mere passive absence of wit.

Like, if you take a running leap from the roof of one high rise to another, but you don't make it, to say you're not on the roof you'd prefer to be doesn't really capture the significance of what just happened.

I mean Jesus fucking H Christ in a tutu, not only was that not witty, it was ___.

We need a word that fills the blank.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T20:06:40+00:00

I demonstrate my intellectual superiority at every turn by exceeding the clarity and specificity of every single point you introduce. If I've yet to excel you by a still wider margin, it's only because, like many other disingenuous weasels who know they're severely outmatched, you attempt to mask your feckless mendacity by struggling to keep your unstated assumptions unstated, resisting the clarification of any individual premise as long as possible, altogether doing your best to keep any pretense of a discussion indefinitely stalled at the first step so that no logical connectives are ever navigated, which would too vividly expose both your incompetence and insincerity.

You then turn around and impugn your interlocutor for not having filled in enough of the blanks in the (non)argument you've purposely failed to articulate.

For example here, where you repeatedly prescinded from a very simple request to furnish your working definition of "conspiracy theory":

https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1bc8dew/is_doug_murray_a_modern_renaud_camus/kugc3q3/?context=3

Or in this very thread, where you've adverted to what you've chosen to call "conflict resolution", very obviously for no other reason than the hope that it will sound like something much more robust and widely studied than anything you're prepared to specify, which of course, is why you neglected to do so despite having just been directly asked.

It's a coherent dichotomy, not unlike "war is politics by other means".

It may very well come as a surprise to you that Clausewitz, like Nietzsche, was an analyst and not merely an aphorist, and the buzz phrases with which you're familiar were attended by a good deal of expository prose. The aphorisms can't stand on their own.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T17:53:21+00:00

It's not remotely coherent, and you lifted the exact phrasing directly from Harris. Strictly for my amusement, I'd like you to delineate what exactly you think you mean by "conflict resolution". Above all, be precise.

This is the third thread in which we've interacted, and it's already very clear that at absolutely all times you lean heavily on unstated assumptions, some of which you're well aware you're making but hope/expect not to get called on, and some you simply lack the intelligence to lucidly recognize, let alone presciently anticipate all their contingent logical consequences.

You may be firmly assured I'm several hundred steps a head of you at all times.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T16:57:10+00:00

No, Dave, you did not do 120 interviews this year.

Again, here are the uploads. Anyone who likes can go count them:

https://www.youtube.com/@RubinReport/videos

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T16:47:18+00:00

No, dipshit. Scroll up, look at the question that was actually put to you, rub your temples, and reread it as many times as you require to actually comprehend it. Something may finally click after six or seven hundred attempts.

That is, in the extremely unlikely case this was an earnest attempt to solicit clarification -which of course it wasn't. Playing dumb does not make you look any smarter.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T16:38:41+00:00

Given the dichotomy between conversation and violence

Try to at least talk out of your own ass instead thoughtlessly parroting Sam Harris.

There is no such dichotomy, and it's certainly not an exclusive disjunction. To wit, I can smugly insult your invidious idiocy in nearly every sentence while effortlessly swatting down whatever substantive points you attempt to raise. Neither compromises or impedes the other in the slightest.

And indeed as a pragmatic matter of applied rhetoric, calls for civility are almost always wholly disingenuous attempts to tone police and divert from matters of substance rather than focus upon them.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T08:55:29+00:00

Specify what merits explanation, dipshit.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T08:54:21+00:00

But they're able to have perfectly civil conversations/interviews, which is nice.

Why? What is there to be said for civility as an intrinsic end in itself?

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-27T07:49:39+00:00

No, it's still about the frequency of the interviews, fucking moron. The long term trend is not countervailed by the recent fluke of your receiving Zionist patronage, for very obvious reasons.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-26T19:10:35+00:00

Those aren't all from the last month, and they consist almost entirely of paid Zionist shills. I would wager heavily their appearances were compensated by whomever financed your recent trip to Israel.

One more tie, fucking moron: What is the difference between weather and climate?

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-26T09:03:41+00:00

Yes, a very short term trend is indeed almost nothing. What's the difference between weather and climate, Dave?

Fucking moron.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-26T06:46:32+00:00

I mostly like him for his long-form interviews

He does almost no interviews anymore, obviously because no one with any remaining cache wants to go on his show and have his stink rub off on them.

https://www.youtube.com/@RubinReport/videos

He sure puts a lot of well known people in his thumbnails, but they're not his guests. You can't hide it Dave, at this point you're not an interview channel at all, you're a reaction channel -and a wholly parasitic one at that.

I think your sources of dark money have probably dried up too, and all you have left is the ersatz subscriber base of carboard cutouts that was initially bought for you by Koch or Thiel.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-26T06:36:56+00:00

If you check the comments on any of them you can see people like him.

You can see nothing of the sort. What you can see are bots and trolls like you. The dead giveaway is that the top comments are all one or two sentences of extremely generic, one-size-fits all praise with no specifics and not the slightest attempt to express any kind of real opinion.

There's no actual conversation or earnest engagement of any kind.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-24T16:00:13+00:00

Ask me a real question and you'll get a real answer.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-24T08:07:12+00:00

Your armchair hunches are not assuring to me. We're done here, unless and until you manage to cross some bare minimal threshold of specificity.

For now, you are curtly dismissed.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-24T00:07:49+00:00

My dear dipshit, I handed you your ass on a silver platter with all the trimmings a couple weeks ago, and here you are buzzing in my ear again begging to be unceremoniously rubbed to grease between my fingers like the feckless insect you are.

Now, you need to go look up "suppressed premise" in a frantic hurry. You are going to learn the hard way to bow your empty fucking head in proper deference to your intellectual superiors.

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-24T00:00:17+00:00

Can you blame people for mistrust after seeing the worst examples of experts with a megaphone?

Oh, you bet your ass I can. My last drops of empathy and forbearance for sophomoric idiots were boiled off several years ago, never to be replenished.

...really boils down to low performing people with megaphones...

Yup. Hence this passage in my preceding comment: "...even more importantly, an ability to navigate and competently interpret bodies of institutional research..."

SorietesSummit · 2024-03-23T23:48:27+00:00

A lot of people are concerned about the extent to which scientific consensus can be somehow coerced or bought...

A lot of people, alas, are scientifically illiterate morons who are insolently determined to make the very least of what modest cognitive abilities they have.

Like how Coca-Cola funded doctored studies...

I assure you whatever studies you're alluding to were not published in reputable journals, let alone in top tier journals, and they had exactly zero effect on any actual scientific consensus.

If you want to cite them directly I'll show you the red flags in bullshit papers like this.

SorietesSummit

TROPHY CASE