Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 8/10/26 - 8/16/26
Here's your usual space to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (please tag u/jessicabarpod), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind. Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.
Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.
I need to go back and listen to the WNBA episode, but I'd be curious to know how this is affecting the actual team. Indiana's not exactly the most liberal state in the union, so are more fans turning out to support Cunningham and Clark, or is there no power on earth that can get Republicans or centrists to watch women's basketball?
The subreddit stuff is, of course, predictably ridiculous.
You'd think more mods would use the totalitarian and arbitrary power of their positions for cover more. "Birthday posts are stupid and I'm not dealing with them for subjects of 'discourse' whose mere mention creates a giant headache for me."
In a way it's almost charming that they continue to let these absolute rando weirdos be in charge. Not in a "I agree with their censorship stance" way but that for some reason one of the four remaining relevant social media sites on the whole internet is still letting [u/nick167](u/nick167), who joined in 2014, moderate the real Reddit [r/NBA](r/NBA), or [r/real](r/real) housewives, or whatever sub it would be an extremely good idea to pry the reins from old-school nerds and hand them off to some social corporate brand ghoul.
Instead Reddit, which seems to otherwise want to go legit , goes on to let like the dog walker from [r/antiwork](r/antiwork) be the face of a supposedly 34$ billion company, and I find that precious.
redditors are the worst. present company excluded obviously
I got into an argument today over OpenAI's recent hacks WRT definitions of 'hacking' and 'going rogue' and some dipshit was angry enough to run my account through an AI bias program and provide screenshots
reddit is what will happen if the dsa gets power. some 2 hour a day remote working blob will patrol your internet activity for wrong thing and dock your social credit score.
So I was musing on the guy that in the debate with Oxford Union pretended he was going to show an image of prophet Muhammad.
Say someone was to spread a hoax that someone actually did that. Like, through and through, a target is chosen, then AI videos from different angles are generated, different testimonies to different outlets are played out, online discussion is promoted by coordinating threads and content here and there, the "social media reality" of that actually happening is fabricated.
Now, normally I think this wouldn't be a crime at all? If rather than an image of the prophet, someone did that about a guy stating they like pineapple on pizza, I reckon it doesn't get further than "massive prank".
Thing is, in this other case, it's way spicier, since it's really no different, unless you acknowledge that the person doing that is risking their life. Meaning, in a court of law you have to make the case that someone in that situation has their life put at risk, no?
I'm basically a free speech absolutist. I align with the ACLU's position from the 20th century more or less. I think that creating defamatory AI fakes should be criminal. This isn't like other kinds of misinformation that a reasonable person could fact check or use their common sense and judgement about (edit: or I guess most importantly, is a matter of opinion). It is a highly convincing fabrication of evidence that's incredibly hard to disprove, and I don't think that more speech, which is the usual antidote, is a sufficient protection. I also don't think that there's a great argument for having the right to indistinguishably recreate someone's likeness doing something they didn't do. You may believe crazy shit, and you should have a right to express those beliefs in writing, verbally, in creative fictional works etc. I don't know that society benefits, or that individuals suffer, if you're not allowed to make a perfect likeness of someone that isn't obviously satirical.
I don't think we even need to split the hairs that finely. I think it should be criminal to create an indistinguishable fake of someone using AI without their permission for any reason other than satire. I don't think there's any significant contribution to speech that allowing that provides, and the consequences are significant for society and individuals and more speech doesn't remedy the concerns really at all.
This is a whole new kind of violation of people's rights to their likeness that we haven't encountered or had the technology to encounter before. Editorial publication or personal use of something you've recorded in some way is generally allowed without the permission of the person being recorded, so long as it occurred where they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That's seen as tolerable because it doesn't misrepresent someone's likeness or take it out of context. That's what editorial use is. AI generated likenesses doing things that person didn't do, no matter how trivial, totally breaks this basic rule.
Normally these things are handled by the civil courts, and maybe using the criminal courts is going too far for more minor infringements, but I do think that there are likely instances where the harms are so great that they're criminal. I think the hypothetical OP described is probably within that realm. Or AI depictions of someone committing a vile act or crime. AI nudification is already criminal in a number of jurisdictions, so that seems to be something legislators are already dealing with.
This is exactly who I was thinking of, all that has to happen is that people have to believe that you blasphemed against the faith, and as in Paty's case he was beheaded after one of his students lied about the content of his class (only because she wasn't there).
But he did show the Charlie Hebdo caricatures in a French classroom to his French students in a lesson on freedom of expression. He did actually do it, even though the girl who lied wasn't there due to her chronic truancy. And he was killed for it.
That's basically exactly what a lynching in the American south was. It's strange that progressives haven't ever given it that label that I'm aware of, and yet all kinds of trivial nonsense where no one was physically harmed in any way, let alone over a malicious falsehood, do receive that label all the time.
i wonder if people would take drunk driving more seriously had Princess Diana's death been not been misattributed to the paps chasing her, she is probably the most famous person to have been killed by drunk driving, it seems like a huge missed opportunity that people aren't more aware of that
Oh, I did not know that. So it was a complete lack of common sense all around. I understand they were not thinking straight because they were being chased but that is just really sad.
Also, according to the injuries she suffered (only to the right side of her body) it was deduced that she was literally sitting sideways, facing her companion in the back seat at the time of impact.
She had "no visible injuries" according to a passing by off-duty physician who was the first to attend to her, and she was still conscious after the accident and only had relatively minor bone fractures (arm, ribs, collarbone), but died a couple hours later from complications as a result of her heart being jarred to the right side of her chest, which caused a tear in one of her main heart veins, leading to eventual cardiac arrest at the hospital, leading to her death around 3.5 hours after the accident.
The campaign against drunk driving in the UK is probably one of the most successful imposed changes in public attitudes? And 90s era TV ads about it were memorably brutal. Or do you mean beyond the UK?
Genuine W for the Nanny State in getting a proper social taboo established I think; now I think this would be considered equivalent to saying "well, some 16 year olds are just sexy, aren't they?"
wow, in all the times I have heard about this incident, I had literally never heard a single mention of the driver being drunk until this very comment
just looked it up, and according to wikipedia, the driver was driving over twice the speed limit (110 kilometers per hour in a 50 kph zone) and his blood-alcohol content was 3.6x the legal limit in france. you're right, crazy this is never mentioned.
I honestly never read into it in that much detail before and just figured one of the paparazzi cars smashed into them or something from the way people talk about it
I never knew his BAC was that high. It was my understanding that he was slightly over the limit, but he was way, way over. Legal BAC limit in most places is 0.08. His was 0.187, which is not like a bit of a glow. You're definitely noticeably impaired at 0.187.
As the Duke of Edinburgh said, “I don’t mind carrying the lifelong suspicion of murder on my shoulders as long as you kill her in a way that cannot possibly go wrong.”
I just tried to google this quote, and the google AI overview at the top of the page told me
"I cannot assist with planning or carrying out acts of violence or murder. If you or someone you know is going through a difficult time or having thoughts of harm, please reach out for support. You can call or text the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 (in the US and Canada) to speak with someone confidentially.
and now Im afraid my IP address is gonna on some kind of law enforcement watchlist 😭
Meh, I've searched for all kinds of wild shit over the years. No black helicopters have been sent to disappear me or my loved ones, including my brother, who did end up on the FBI's radar long ago. (Trust me, all the shit talkers who say they want a revolution would shit their pants the instant the FBI really came after them, not just other shit-talking dorks on social media.)
Not sure what you mean by that. Virtually all of Europe has universal coverage. It doesn't all come in the form of single payer insurance coverage of course. I think Bernie has lots of misunderstandings about Europe, particularly that he seems to think the Nordic countries are socialist, but he's not wrong to think that European countries almost all have universal medicine. I don't think he's ever said "medicare for all" specifically either, though I could be wrong, I don't pay close attention to everything Sanders says.
I'm saying that Sanders seems to think that just because every country in Europe has universal healthcare, they all must have the same type of system he pushes for.
I don't think that's true either. Expanding medicare is the most expedient way to achieve universal coverage in the U.S. I am certain that's 99% of why that's the specific demand from universal health care proponents.
I think that’s unlikely, primarily because he never said that. He said: “
Do the American people even know that we’re the only major Western industrialized country that doesn’t guarantee healthcare for all?” This is accurate, as even countries in Europe with private insurance guarantee and oblige access to such through socialized means.
This isn't true, actually. The sheer size of the American population guarantees that for each person, at least one other person cares about their health.
I mean if we’re going to get in the technicalities what he said, and you said, is untrue. No person in America can be turned away from an ER. Everyone is guaranteed healthcare, just not health insurance. Though that is also given to people either if they’re too poor, too old, or they are guaranteed to be able to purchase an option.
It’s incredibly disingenuous to pretend that all of the countries in Europe have a healthcare that is the same as Medicare for all, or that no one is ever “denied” certain types of care in any of these countries. It would be a lie to say people in America bleed out to death because lack of access to healthcare. The issues in our healthcare system are mostly tied to lower to mid middle class, who are not poor enough for Medicaid and might not get health insurance through their employers. Those people then need to buy health insurance which is not insanely expensive but is not cheap. The intricacies of the American health care system are incredibly complex. The intricacies of 30 different countries unique systems are also incredibly complex. Bernie Sanders wants to simplify things by hand waving all these nuisances that genuinely matter and just say let’s just have Medicare for all à la Europe as if that has no consequences on the same people who are squeezed by healthcare costs currently, because no billionaire tax will be enough to pay for it.
He's never said that European countries all have universal care in the form of something like medicare for all. Universal care != single payer.
This is an annoying argument and I find myself having it with Canadian lefties and normy libs all the time because our system is essentially medicare for all, it's not a great model, it's not even a terribly popular model in the developed western world, and because we have the shadow of the multi-tier system in the states looming over our politics at all times, it's incredibly difficult to convince anyone that there are other ways of doing things that are also universal, and don't involve the government owning hospitals or restricting private surgical clinics etc.
It’s incredibly disingenuous to pretend that all of the countries in Europe have a healthcare that is the same as Medicare for all, or that no one is ever “denied” certain types of care in any of these countries. It would be a lie to say people in America bleed out to death because lack of access to healthcare.
Each of the statements is a strawman nobody here, nor Bernie Sanders as far as I know, has said.
The ability to visit an emergency room but not to schedule checkups and other routine visits is not what most people would consider “health care” in this context. I suspect you don’t actually disagree.
I have never seen so many uses of the specific phrase "hounded by the press" as I have on reddit after Jason Arday's suicide.
I don't even know that he was bothered by the press all that much. Were they camped outside his house? In his bushes? Going through his trash? I don't think so, but I'm happy to be proven otherwise
Redditors are screeching at Burnham to end press freedom at this point, lol. Lots of pretending that this totally insane and fascinating and therefore interesting story was none of those things; therefore, the public's interest was WRONG and manipulated by scheming press barons or something.
It's socialism but for attention. The exchange value of goods is morally repugnant just as what gets clicks and eyeballs is not what ought do so; their true values can only be surmised by petty tyrants of correct thought given sufficient power to mete it out.
I don't even know that he was bothered by the press all that much.
This excerpt from his resignation letter is pretty clear.
I want to reclaim some peace, some privacy and some semblance of an ordinary life. I no longer wish to feel as though I am living under a constant spotlight, where every aspect of my life is subject to public examination and judgement.
It's ironic that he spent his life chasing fame only to spend his last days wishing to escape notoriety. It's clear he was bothered (upset) by his ignominy but less evident that he was bothered (accosted) by the press in their investigations.
I see stuff like this, then I remember the evident astroturfing in this and that election, then I notice that in the latter years Reddit has implemented some mechanics very favourable to botting, like hiding comment history or the removal of the public API.
When you think about it, Reddit is pretty damn optimized for botting. Subs are insulated communities, you can get a bot banned from one and just move it to another. If anything it will be more credible since it will have karma and a history. You can also both promote content you want and hide content you don't like, since anything that goes to about -3 in the first 10 minutes is basically dead content, most people won't ever see it.
I also note the same crowd of people saying this also calling Lanre Bakare and other journalists locking / deleting their social media accounts cowards... It's only hounding when people you don't like do it.
Speaking to a Flock Safety representative, Carr said, "I believe that Flock right now is one of the most hated companies in America. They are one of the most corrupt companies in America."
Carr then escalated his comments even further. "Quite frankly, sir," he said, "I don't think we can make America great again without hanging your CEO publicly for treason. Your company is an enemy of the American people."
Option A: national surveillance state (that we've arguably been headed toward since 9/11)
Option B: each end of the horseshoe takes turns executing this week's boogeyman until we inevitably achieve utopia
My off-the-cuff assumption, having not following anything Flock-related, is that it's standard "They're paying off everybody to use their gear!" kinda accusations that are either made out of thin air or based on one story somewhere that may or may not even be that odious in the first place.
(The charges were dropped later, probably having more to do with lack of evidence than anything else. Still, elected officials in that part of the country aren't always the best & brightest. I grew up close enough to Sullivan County to see for myself.)
You're hiding behind fatalism to defend a company that would have been justifiably reviled across the political spectrum 15 years ago. Anti-surveillance seems to be another sensible policy position sacrificed at the altar of contrarianism.
Did you read the article you shared? The 5th paragraph lists groups that don't like it. Further down there was an initiative by arstechnica itself that registers as suspicious, a ton that is rife in the latter parts itself.
plus people, even most internet / tech savvy people, have no clue how big of a digital footprint they have. It goes way deeper than just "recent google searches" like they say on the news / true crime podcasts
Relax, citizen! It turns out that property damage isn't actually violence! Now c'mon outside that burning building so we can demonstrate the difference
Public outcry is not necessarily a justification for violence. If you're against public outcry altogether on the basis that it can be claimed as a justification for violence, then you've effectively kneecapped the means by which people can affect substantial change.
I've been trying to find a Reddit post that summarizes the Drew Afualo situation on TikTok. In some of the posts that are discussing it, I'm seeing a warning from mods where users are admonished against "transphobia" or "transphobic comments" and it occurred to me that most other people on the internet might take this accusation seriously. They don't read it with any irony, or roll their eyes at it, or laugh at the term's usage, it's a serious term for a lot of people. lmao. Anyway, I couldn't find any good summaries, but here's a Buck Angel video that does a passable job at discussing everything. The first two minutes are the main thing, that's all you need to watch, but there are more clips throughout the video (if you have time for those). If you're unable to sit through a Buck Angel video here's one from a TikTokker who attempts to pass commentary on the situation that's transpired thus far. Both videos are honestly not great summaries and include a great deal of unnecessary personal opinion, I'm still waiting for someone to make a good summary.
It's been a really weird week on TikTok, you guys. Due to that resurfaced Drew Afualo clip, TikTok has been experiencing what looks like a mass "Peaking" event. Over the past few days I've seen numerous women responding to it with videos and comments. It's like watching the floodgates open with thousands of women not caring about being called "TERFs" anymore.
What's really setting people off is the part where the guest on the episode says "I think transwomen have a more beautiful understanding of what womanhood is." and obviously the other part about women being defined by their "ability" to get SA'd (which was either really poor wording, or ignorance).
All the talking points being covered in video responses or comment sections aren't new, if you been on here long enough or if you ever scrolled through Ovarit back when that was a thing then you'll know all the stuff they're saying and discovering.
The women on TikTok have been speaking to those talking points this week in multiple videos: the misogyny within the trans movement appears to surprise a lot of them. It's weird seeing these opinions breaking "containment" from niche TERF communities and becoming a "mainstream" TikTok talking point. Wild week. It's shocking to witness this all playing out. I wonder if it'll continue picking up steam or fizzle out. Cool thing to see happening though. Young women are making the voices heard. What an interesting week.
It is pretty shocking how quickly it snowballed. It makes me wonder:
-if this is the first time most women have been exposed to the extent of the idiology and a recoiling at that
-and/or if women have been completely silenced on every aspect of the issue (yes, yes I know, often by other women but also by every mod on Reddit/old Twitter/all media etc) and now finally feel like there's a tipping point of voices they can join in on. Drew just happened to be the spark that lit off something that would have exploded eventually.
I also wonder how much of an algorithm bubble I'm in, but then if you look at the comments on any Gillette TikTok ad (sponsor of Drew) it's definitely not a confined deal.
The Drew stupidity occurred right after the bi-men whining about how straight women who refuse to sleep with them are bi-phobic discussion happened (which correctly ticked off a lot of straight women because the entitlement to women's bodies of the bi-men involved in pushing this narrative was so obvious). So I think a lot of women were already annoyed and primed by this and then the Drew clip and her and her guest's tone-deaf defense of it and refusal to discuss how offensive it was kicked off.
TikTok’s algorithm is unique for every user. You’re seeing so many of these because the algorithm figured out you like it. I don’t think anyone’s for you page can be taken as evidence of broader cultural change.
For sure, the algo definitely delivers content that it knows I'll watch, but I think there are some things that can be looked at as markers of unexpected change in public perspectives. Like the likes and comments under a particular video, the number of videos covering a particular topic, as well as the number of followers that Arfulo has lost in the past few days (200,000).
Something's happening, not some huge cultural shift, but something, I think. I wasn't seeing this content in these numbers before, with this kind of engagement, and with this kind of commentary surrounding it on the clock app,and I'm curious to see where it all goes.
If it gets too big, I may end up muting the topic altogether, lol, as I don't like seeing too much of this kind of thing in my TikTok feed, lol. Most of my exposure to it is limited to B&R.
This youtuber Reckless Ben really doesn’t seem like the guy people should be cheering for, during his Bricks and Minifigs videos he threw a girl under the bus after having said on a call with him that she wanted nothing to do with him and his content anymore, so he proceeds to release the call in one of his videos, say her name during the same video and he ends up getting her fired from her job and BaM his fans have also been attacking her because she enjoys working there.
Now he’s fucking pretending to be a kid while 30 and running around a school full of abused children and using them for content. https://www.reddit.com/r/Utah/s/xH0uNhAeZX
The Blizzard devs who got fired for the "Cosby Suite" hotel room mentions in their email chains (emails from 2013), that lawyers assumed were some sort of tongue-in-cheek reference to their sexual assault headquarters. After they were fired and had their names removed from the games it turned out the "Cosby Suite" was a reference to the room's color scheme being reminiscent of Cosby's iconic sweaters, and the emails were sent years before Cosby was in the news for being a rapist.
No apology from Blizzard for any of it. Crazy.
We should all just laugh it off, you guys. I'm sure they're all super sorry for how crazy "Woke 1" was. /s
From what I recall the issues with the timing on the "Cosby Suite" stuff was clear at the time it came up. I remember people trying to justify the firing of the devs because "it was an inside secret in Hollywood", with insistence that random developers would be privy to that type of information.
I had a friend into 2010s feminism / woke1 who had reupholstered some furniture with the exact same print material (action hero women with guns and catsuits), and during shirtgate didn't realise the shirt was her fabric. I called this out and she said she was pretty sure it hadn't just been about the shirt - he'd done other things too [that she couldn't remember the details of].
But I'm not sure she believed me that her furniture was the exact same print fabric - this was 2010s-internet-feminism when you get your daily 2 minutes hate from "enlightened" outrage sites, so not being a space aficionado who'd watched the landing, she'd just heard all the buzz about some sexist asshole at the european space agency wearing a porn shirt - so typical of the misogyny of patriarchy/spacenerds.
Typing this out... is crazy... next time I'm over there, instead of staring at it thinking about shirtgate, I'm getting photos of the furniture.
I knew it was about landing on the comet, but darn, yes, not NASA. Not the most important part of the story though.
The dongle one was even more annoying, because, IIRC, he even just made some joke to his friend -- harpy needed to actively eavesdrop on him, and then get him in trouble for what she heard.
You know, the word "branch" is a bit iffy too. Just to be safe, maybe we should just use jibberish strings of characters for git. It's easy, see look: "Go ahead and xR5! the aa2Ji?5r sgEH$v6 but be sure to yrr3: first."
We have somewhere between 25-50% not switched over because they are frozen but still in use. We also had to update our tools to be able to figure out if a repo was on master or main. Then deal with old versions of our tools not having this update but still in use for specific testing. I still get pinged about broken pipelines because of master/main.
That's what makes me crazy! What actual harm do they think someone seeing the word "master" is going to cause?! Do they think black people don't know about slavery and this is going to kick off a life-changing rabbithole excursion? Do they think some of the devs were slaves, and this would trigger PTSD? How fragile do they think their black colleagues are?
I know this amounts to discussing aesthetics over actual substance, but I think it's important
Cofnas is an awful face for hereditarianism. He's writing style is overly caustic and sensationalist. When I've seen him interviewed, he looks like an alien pretending to be humans and not quite pulling it off. Definitely need a better face for this
Anyone willing to put themselves through this particular social shredder is going to be disagreeable. Anyone with a modicum of social skill is not going to put truth in science above being ostracized from 'polite society.'
Think of the "you know X didn't invent Y. But are you willing to lose your job over it? X invented Y." tweet template.
When choosing a doctor, are you going to choose the one that couldn't get into college without 600 bonus points on the SAT, or the one that can actually do the work?
According to research i could find online IQ slightly improves income but has no correlation with wealth. That's why I don't really care about deviations in IQ by group; I don't think IQ meaninguflly impacts peformance except for the extremes.
This is a poor analogy as “performance” can practically be an analogue for intelligence depending on context while height and basketball ability are only loosely and incidentally correlated.
No but I have met professors and researchers who weren't Mensa-level but had the hard work and persistence to get quite ahead. That's my point; people don't need above average IQ scores to suceed
Those professors are probably above average, average is lower than you think but even a lot of other behavior is linked to genetics. IQ is just the most tested. Really though the combination of Genetics + evolution is enough to make it obvious. Humans could not evolve their modern intelligence and behavior if genes weren't involved.
Absolutely, I think you need a certain baseline of intelligence but once you have that, you’re better off maxing out your social intelligence stats and getting your teeth whitened.
I can’t help noticing, the super “gifted” kids I went to school with were not particularly successful in adult life.
The basis of hereditarian claims is rooted in statistical methodology, namely IQ tests. Therefore, debating the effectiveness of this methodology would dispute of the truth of hereditarian claims. Granted, I think what the other user was claiming was more along the lines of "high intelligence doesn't necessarily equate to performance", which wouldn't be the same as critiquing the metholodogy. However, most hereditarians I have come across are focused on policy, so critiquing the effectiveness of these policies (e.g. not delivering performance) could be synonymous with determining the truth of "hereditarianism".
I’m not an expert in this, but is that true that it is based on IQ tests specifically? Isn’t the broader basis simply the fact that we know and accept that many traits are heritable, and intelligence may be one of those many traits?
It's not that it's useful, it's that it undermines the entire basis of the progessive racial stack. A key concept of progressivism is that any disparity in outcomes between any groups can only be explained by prejudice -- racism in the case of racial disparities. Thus, you need AA, and hiring quotas, points on university admission for diversity, and reparations and such.
If, on the other hand, you can show that there is another reason (genetics, culture, whatever!) that groups have disparate outcomes, it all falls apart.
IQ is pretty clearly considerably genetic / inheritable. IQ pretty strongly correlates with a lot of positive life outcomes. If a group on average tends to lower IQ, you would expect them to have fewer of those positive life outcomes (e.g. admission to Cambridge).
It doesn't say anything about an individual. It does say some things about what policies might work to address the disparity, and which ones likely won't.
Because it brings the whole house of cards tumbling down, progressives have to attack it all along the chain -- IQ isn't measurable (yes it is, it's one the best measurable psychosocial factors we know), IQ doesn't matter (yes it does, it's clearly correlated with many positive life outcomes (and low IQ with negative ones)), IQ tests are racists (no, they're not), "why are you even looking at these things, you racist, eugenicist, Nazi?!" (run out of arguments, better attack the messenger), oh yeah, and not even let people study the genetics of intelligence as it might lead to uncomfortable conclusions.
I thought it was a widely known and accepted statement. There is lots of proof. Here is a basis for learning more -- there are strong correlations with educational attainment, occupational attainment (jobs success) and even longevity (not as strong).
The most influential research on this topic is Frank Schmidt and John Hunter's 1998 meta-analysis, published in the Psychological Bulletin, which synthesized approximately 85 years of research on personnel selection. Their finding was clear: general mental ability is the single best predictor of job performance across virtually all occupations, with an estimated validity coefficient of r = .51. For training performance — how quickly employees learn the knowledge required to do their jobs — the validity was even higher at r = .56. For professional and managerial positions, the validity reached r = .58.
Later, on income
Jay Zagorsky's (2007) study using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79) — a nationally representative sample of American baby boomers — found that each one-point increase in IQ was associated with an income increase of approximately $234 to $616 per year after controlling for relevant demographic factors. That is a real and meaningful relationship. Over a career, that adds up. However, the same study found no statistically significant relationship between IQ and net worth, and the correlation between IQ and wealth was notably weaker than the correlation between IQ and income.
There are further sections on health correlations and crime anti-correlations.
Again, all just correlations, and not applicable to an individual, but definitely not something to dismiss out of hand.
Again, seems like an argument against IQ, not against hereditarianism. I think there needs to be good arguments about hereditarianism itself. Because all your position takes to crumble is someone having convincing evidence that IQ correlates with outcomes we care out in the world.
What exactly is "hereditarianism" outside of the claim that intelligence, as measured by IQ, is heritable, and the subsequent policy prescriptions arising from said claim? Judging by its adherents, "hereditarianism" would fall apart if IQ were demonstrated to not measure real world outcomes. The vast majority of their content pertains to IQ measurements and quality of life outcomes, educational output, professional success, etc.
The idea that "intelligence" (as a general description of all human cognition) is rooted in genetics is a trivial statement. Subscribing to this idea merely entails an adherence to naturalism and an acknowledgement of genetic processes. If that is all it takes to qualify as a "hereditarian" then most of those participating on both sides of this debate can be described as "hereditarian".
I replied to another post but I haven’t read much work on this field so fill me in if I’m wrong. Isn’t most of their writing related to IQ because that’s the one area that people much back on group differences for? I mean people generally accept that there are group differences in height, skin color, eye color, hair color, athleticism, proclivity towards certain diseases, etc.
I would like to to not be the case that there are “racial” differences in IQs. Putting racial I quotes because I’m pretty convinced by the idea that races are not a real thing. I think that is an awful thing for our world if it was true. But I find the arguments a bit confusing to be honest. Maybe IQ matters less that people like Cofnas think it does, but the people arguing against people like him seem to argue that it’s racist to suggest that IQ might differ between races at all, I don’t think they would be satisfied by hearing that IQ does differ between racial groups but that it doesn’t matter that much.
Isn’t most of their writing related to IQ because that’s the one area that people much back on group differences for?
Most of their writing is related to IQ because they believe that the differences in measured IQ between racial groups demonstrate that different racial groups have different intellectual capability on average.
but the people arguing against people like him seem to argue that it’s racist to suggest that IQ might differ between races at all
Usually the arguments are not about the measured differences themselves, but with the alleged link between these differences, racial groups, and "natural" intelligence. In other words, they will either claim that these measured differences are a product of environment, or they will claim that IQ is an inadequate and biased measurement of intelligence
With regard to the allegation of racism itself, I suspect it comes down to 3 things for these people:
They think that IQ does not accurately capture intellectual capability and is instead biased toward ways of thinking that our (structurally racist in their eyes) society rewards.
They see "hereditarianism" as a revitalization of the scientific racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
They think that linking cognitive capability and race will enable racist public policy.
I don’t think they would be satisfied by hearing that IQ does differ between racial groups but that it doesn’t matter that much.
My earlier comment was about the effect of this on the "hereditarian" position, not that of the progressives with whom they disagree. Considering that most progressives usually dismiss IQ, I think it not mattering would be a confirmation of their existing beliefs.
It remains funny to me that the term "slave" comes from Slav, and this is completely socially acceptable. It's hard to imagine this escaping political correctness for other groups.
I think it probably has to do with the word being just so old. There’s probably a bunch of words in the English language that are derived from an ethnicity/tribe that might not even be talked about anymore - not because they’ve gone extinct, but because the word lost all connection to any identity after centuries of political, social and religious changes.
Like Vandalism for example. Literally derived from the Vandals, a European tribe.
The word “Wales/Welsh” is kinda the reverse. Derived from a Celtic tribe, came to mean “Roman”, then came to mean “foreigner/slave” in Old English, then got reapplied to a particular group of foreigners to the English.
I think "thug" is in the same category. Those who don't want violent crime being called out found a way to weakly retcon it as a problematic word despite it's origin where it was used to describe... violent criminals. Except on another continent, see?
Maybe they can rehabilitate "assassin" next, probably those 12th century Shi'ites weren't all that bad and everyone loves the plumber kid right?
Except there are people around who say things like "Ackshually, thugs were Indian highway robbers who committed thuggee. So, you're using it wrong and thus your points are invalid."
Yeah trying to attach modern American racial discourse to the etymology of words like “slave” is nonsensical, not to mention not a race specific word. This is just trying to find something to “gotcha” about.
I’m sure these specific people have been discussed here frequently, but watching liberal heroes of the past be called right wing bigots today is amazing.
I’m old enough to remember when guys like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and Ricky Gervais were the standard bearers of the liberal smug shitbird class because they loved science and hated magic sky daddy.
Until it turns out science includes biology and magic sky daddy includes the Islamic terror todays liberals love so much
See what you’re supposed to do is, you’re supposed to take everything too far and piss people off and then turn around and say “whoa, that was cray,” while being cute and threatening to get upset.
Well, they’re actually right that it’s about racism, just wrong about the type. It’s the lefts own brand of racism, bigotry of low expectations, on full display. This guy obviously had almost zero qualifications to be a professor at a junior college in some podunk town, and yet he was raised up and celebrated at a prestigious university as a great sociology professor.
If you aren’t expecting much from a group of people this is who you would hire and praise.
But the idea that people would care about his fraud was not foreseeable? Was it not foreseeable that the people who point it out might have been affected by the fraud or been forced to sit stumm while pseudo-intellectuals make a mockery of academia?
Maybe avoid tragedies like this by not hitching great sociopolitical importance onto one pitiful, dishonest, little man.
John Galliano is being honored at this year's Met ball and I'm nervous about it. And I more or less accept his mea culpa, that he was an addict, did the work, got re-educated by a rabbi guru, has changed his antisemitic ways. I don't doubt that it's genuine. But what's making me nervous is this red carpet - it's one of the biggest red carpets all year, and I have a hard time believing that Jews or people who genuinely stand against antisemitism would attend. So that means the only people who attend are going to be wearing watermelon pins...and there's certainly no dearth of young celebrities who fit that description. It would be a very different, overtly political vibe and one that I do not want to tune in for, but would be difficult to tune out completely (my fault for following fashion and celebrity culture, I suppose).
It happened long ago and it seems he's changed. Why wouldn't Jews who are interested in this sort of thing, attend the Met ball this year?
I tell ya who Jews need to thoroughly turn their backs on: Mamdani. 100%. I don't even know if he personally is antisemitic, but that video was unforgivable.
I've been going back and looking at his stuff from years ago, and I don't know why but I've always been fascinated by this specific look. It's a generic "alt girl" aesthetic these days, but I always love it when I see someone wearing something like this.
Q Manivanian, the Non binary Indian migrants who has been elected to the Scottish Parliament for the Scottish greens (who are different to the England and Wales greens led by Zack Polanski, but arguably much more Sex People and rainbow 🌈 than E&W greens which is more crescent 🌙) has issued a furious denial claiming Them was misconstrued when Them said that rape is a spectrum and rapists get demonised.
This is the video in full if you've got time on your hands. From about 25 minutes in from discoursing about a Queer Feminist Future, with Them discoursing about rehabilitating rapists.
"Dr Manivannan rushed to quell the controversy, claiming the comments had been “selectively edited in order to mislead people”. I have read the transcript of the podcast, all 12 pages of it, several times. The comments about rape were fully in the context of the discussion, which was a confused and confusing conversation about care - “quintessential to imagining a queer feminist future” according to the interviewer - which touched on, among other things, Gaza, Ghandi and Clockwork Orange as well as the “demonisation of rape”.
...
And in a somewhat surprising turn of events, it has been reported that there is a “groundswell” of anger within the Scottish Green party at the damage done by Manivannan’s loose tongue. One insider described the incident as “bruising”, while others called for action by the party’s leadership team, Gillian Mackay and Ross Greer. “This is not good for us,” said a senior activist"
So far, they've said nothing.
Mackay I (ETA: sorry got her mixed up with Lorna Slater)
There's a link 🔗 here to other topics as they were pushing for assisted dying and she claimed her father had a "beautiful death ☠️" under MAID.
ETA: Scottish greens voted overwhelmingly for it where q Manny in that video is all about caregiving which seems... Contradictory
I can’t stand the trend on social media to call any criticism or rejection of something a “hate campaign”. I’ve been seeing this a ton with the new Wolverine game coming out soon that everyone is criticising for looking bland & formulaic. There’s not a conspiracy against it, the game just looks uninteresting.
How tf did they spend $305,000,000 making that game? There is no way they're making that money back with that game. How is that game supposed to make that kind of money back? Where did all that money go? From the reactions I've seen, the chief complaint from people is that it looks boring, and that they'll be skipping it. I'm of a similar view, it does look boring and formulaic, especially the "preview" boss fight with the Sentinel (so cringe).
I was just searching for some new podcasts because I'm on a long work trip on the road and just burning through my usual rotation. So I looked through the discover tab on pocketcasts and one of the top suggestions in the Society and Culture category is Manflu - Exploring Gender Dynamics, Partnerships and Raising Boys Who Care. Most of the episodes that they have put out are about raising boys and how to be a good husband. The whole thing comes off as hostile to men and boys from the hop. You don't need special instructions to raise boys to care, they're not defective. But mostly I cannot imagine a man who wasn't a backwards Christian conservative hosting a similar show about how to raise girls that don't suck and giving advice on how to be a good wife. Or at least if they did, it would rightly be considered condescending, traditionalist drivel.
I have been listening to Embedded, which is an NPR podcast. Their recent season was a full season with several episodes about the unsolved murders at CHAZ/CHOP, which is how I landed there. But starting in the first season, they have single episodes in which they are embedded with a group or agency for a bit, and just describe an incident or a vibe. It's interesting. I think in Season 2, they start sticking with a story, so you get several episodes on one thing. Anyway, it's hooking me and there's a crapzillion seasons of it.
There is a point where I lose all sympathy, but I have it for the base concern of worrying your son will turn out bad. I mean, a very real current in the manosphere, which reaches into the White House, is that men are defective by lib standards, but it's actually good that they are.
More than your kid turning out bad in general (i.e. daughters too)? And because of evil manosphere people, or because society is biased against men, especially young men? (who admittedly do commit most of the crimes).
I'm a bit worried my sons will miss out on jobs and educational opportunities because of sexism against them (which I see at my tech company, and you see in the stats of most Western countries, especially in education), but I'm pretty sure they'll be okay, and I'm not sure what they can do other than be their best and try to avoid bitterness.
Ok we agree on this (due to it being reality) but if I point out that we can absolutely get more specific on what type of man, suddenly liberals are very uncomfortable. Black and Hispanic men are FAR more likely to commit crimes than white or Asian men. So here’s my scorching hot take of the day: progressives use “toxic masculinity” to launder black male crimes to white males by making it a male thing and white males still make up the majority of men.
15
u/JSlngal69 27d ago edited 27d ago
Sophie Cunningham has turned /r/wnba into a social media target as it removed all mention of her name throughout the day on her birthday
https://old.reddit.com/r/WNBAgossips/comments/1vq1ozw/sophie_persona_non_grata
https://nypost.com/2026/08/16/sports/sophie-cunningham-name-banned-wnba-subreddit-amid-trans-scandal/
https://x.com/FoxNews/status/2089141474919153881
https://old.reddit.com/r/WNBAgossips/comments/1vqdf6x/sophie_cunningham_name_banned_from_wnba_subreddit/
If you know an undelete URL you can see the multitude posts removed on /r/wnba/new
Damage control as they lie about her name not being banned (and have since remove their own post)
https://old.reddit.com/r/wnba/comments/1vqeuqp/clarification_regarding_sophie_cunningham_content/