Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+350|2359
I watched a program on T.V. about the FBI's child abduction unit. That is such a wonderful use of taxpayer money. Stuff like that is the best argument against "defund the police". I think more resources need to go to stuff like that instead of monument defense. There is actually a ton of public safety and crime prevention things we need to invest in right now.

The American right wing consistently makes the worst argument in favor of their policies and police. They should have promoted the good stuff police do and not have had such a confrontational stance with the protest. And Blue Lives Matter people definitely need to distance themselves from Confederate and Trump defense.

I think the arguments you pick to defend certain policies say a lot more about where you are coming from more than the stuff you pick and choose to like. Especially since very few people develop comprehensive and consistent political identities. The fact that police supporters chose to take a stand when it comes to monuments and black urban crime discredits the whole thing. If that is how they really feel then we should defund the police and rebuild the system from the ground up.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

  • malcolm turnbull: political science BA and law school, university of sydney (i.e. the australian equivalent of oxford PPE); oxford rhodes scholar after to do civil law
  • tony abbott: economics BSc and law school, university of sydney; oxford rhodes scholar to do PPE after
  • kevin rudd: asian studies BA, ANU; mandarin studies postgraduate in taiwan
  • julia gillard: started arts degree BA at canberra, transferred to melbourne to get an arts degree and law LLB
  • john howard: law LLB at university of sydney


so, let me get this straight, you think australia has an amazing technocracy, but your entire political leadership from the last 20-25 years all have humanities/arts degrees, law school, and half of them went to oxford? the highest approved australian PM of all time, according to modern polling (kevin rudd), didn't even bother studying anything remotely technocratic: he did asian studies, which is the equivalent of a fucking german or french literature degree in all but name; it's the equivalent of 'women's studies' in the states. it's a PURE humanities degree.

that's a whole lot of leaders with 'backwards-looking' educations, learning nothing from the past!

but the problem with the UK is it has too many oxferd humanities/PPE types running the show?

Those are mixed degrees with some application, apart from Gillard none of them are really arts degrees and Gillard is widely accepted as the most useless and corrupt of them all.

Meanwhile the two people running Britain did History and Literature, no applied anything there.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX

Larssen wrote:

Climate change, you might say. But the effects of it won't be the same all over the globe. It's also a slow-moving change that we can adapt to. I realise it may cause enormous destruction but I can't see the dominant centres of power today succumbing entirely because of it. I also don't subscribe to the notion that all of nature will be wiped out somehow. Most of the scary long term effects have been plotted to take hundreds if not thousands of years.
I don't agree, I predict it will happen far quicker than people really expect.

Himalayan glaciers disappearing or the monsoons failing could lead to billions starving or relocating over a decade.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

the fact he says you need people who can make 'good judgments', but then dismisses any past-oriented learning, i.e. the very definition of wisdom, raises the question 'just what do good judgments consist of?' they're not off-the-cuff intuitions. good judgments are precisely formed by prior knowledge, precedent, example; wisdom, in short. the idea of a 'canny' technocrat who can 'make great judgments' sounds like a fucking The Apprentice candidate. oh, a dynamic leader who can make great decisions on the fly!!!
Based on the leaders of Britain, highly 'educated' in history but unable to take a rational decision on anything, I'd say I'm right.

None of these people seem to have learned introspection, problem solving, strategic thinking or rational decision-making - all of which are part of the normal process of becoming adults and why they're basically still grizzling babies who never grew up, despite their multiple advanced degrees.

https://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/cropped_article_image/public/blogs_2020/07/gettyimages-1227700577.jpg

Here's an article for you.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 … every-goal
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+284|2091

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

  • malcolm turnbull: political science BA and law school, university of sydney (i.e. the australian equivalent of oxford PPE); oxford rhodes scholar after to do civil law
  • tony abbott: economics BSc and law school, university of sydney; oxford rhodes scholar to do PPE after
  • kevin rudd: asian studies BA, ANU; mandarin studies postgraduate in taiwan
  • julia gillard: started arts degree BA at canberra, transferred to melbourne to get an arts degree and law LLB
  • john howard: law LLB at university of sydney


so, let me get this straight, you think australia has an amazing technocracy, but your entire political leadership from the last 20-25 years all have humanities/arts degrees, law school, and half of them went to oxford? the highest approved australian PM of all time, according to modern polling (kevin rudd), didn't even bother studying anything remotely technocratic: he did asian studies, which is the equivalent of a fucking german or french literature degree in all but name; it's the equivalent of 'women's studies' in the states. it's a PURE humanities degree.

that's a whole lot of leaders with 'backwards-looking' educations, learning nothing from the past!

but the problem with the UK is it has too many oxferd humanities/PPE types running the show?

Those are mixed degrees with some application, apart from Gillard none of them are really arts degrees and Gillard is widely accepted as the most useless and corrupt of them all.

Meanwhile the two people running Britain did History and Literature, no applied anything there.
how wrong can you be? ‘mixed degrees with some application’. you’re just making stuff up now to suit your own deluded reality, aren’t you?

half of them have BACHELORS OF ARTS degrees. they all graduated from humanities faculties. you’ve just been ranting about how humanities graduates and oxford toffs are ruining the world and simultaneously promoting australia’s amazing technocracy ... when half of your leaders went to oxford to do THE ‘toff’ university course par excellence and all have humanities degrees.

how is ‘asian studies’ a course with application but french studies or modern languages isn’t? the courses are exactly the same but with a different focus! literature, history, politics, linguistics. it’s the exact same skills, the exact same forms of assessment. how is one suddenly ‘mixed and applicable’ but the other a nonsense degree? LMAO.

you are honestly so pathetic.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-25 00:00:01)

uziq
Member
+284|2091

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

the fact he says you need people who can make 'good judgments', but then dismisses any past-oriented learning, i.e. the very definition of wisdom, raises the question 'just what do good judgments consist of?' they're not off-the-cuff intuitions. good judgments are precisely formed by prior knowledge, precedent, example; wisdom, in short. the idea of a 'canny' technocrat who can 'make great judgments' sounds like a fucking The Apprentice candidate. oh, a dynamic leader who can make great decisions on the fly!!!
Based on the leaders of Britain, highly 'educated' in history but unable to take a rational decision on anything, I'd say I'm right.

None of these people seem to have learned introspection, problem solving, strategic thinking or rational decision-making - all of which are part of the normal process of becoming adults and why they're basically still grizzling babies who never grew up, despite their multiple advanced degrees.

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES

Here's an article for you.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 … every-goal
yes, great, metacognition. that article doesn’t say anything about it being reserved for graduates of BEng courses.

nobody else in the world has this delusion. you see a ruling class of idiotic toffs and conclude it was their university reading list that made them that way and not, you know, being sent to private schools and reared by nannies from age 4 as ‘future rulers’. no, no, it was reading milton and pliny that did it for them!

the article even talks about watching french films and considering things in multiple languages as a way to develop metacognition. what do you think half of humanities courses consist of, you twerp?

for a man of your age to be this petty is just astounding. get a new fucking thesis already. it’s so inane. you could bore the tits off a milk cow.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX
Of course its not reserved for engineers, the question is why do the people who are so certain its their right to rule the nation fail to develop these skills?

Its as if they learn no useful real-world skills at all while at college.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+284|2091
lmao wow you're so close to the answer dilbert! hotter! hotter! neaaaaarly there!

what a shame your illustrious engineering education didn't teach you the basics of logic. you have a high aptitude for committing gross logical fallacies. how about you start off with some basic syllogisms? you can check into a humanities 101 course and do aristotle.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-25 00:48:16)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX
... and why do they choose to study such stupid subjects?

There's a world of difference between law or economics and art history.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

you can check into a humanities 101 course and do aristotle.
Thanks but I'll do something useful

I should learn about PLCs and motor controllers
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+284|2091

Dilbert_X wrote:

... and why do they choose to study such stupid subjects?

There's a world of difference between law or economics and art history.
are there many art historians in government?

wow! it’s almost like your rants against the humanities are totally confused and irrelevant!
Larssen
Member
+23|527

Dilbert_X wrote:

... and why do they choose to study such stupid subjects?

There's a world of difference between law or economics and art history.
There's more to history than art history. I don't understand why you single out history as a 'dumb degree'. Did you at some point write a shit history essay in school that failed to get a passing grade?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,808|5411|USA

Here's a forbes article bemoaning the real world skills that college doesn't prepare people for:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/under30net … 76cc906675

Notice the focus on communication and people skills, and not on PLCs and motor controllers.

I don't think investing the time and money into taking advanced engineering would be a very "practical" decision for people who don't intend to become engineers.

Language, history, and culture might be a good choice for a lawyer or a diplomat, and might not be a bad thing for an urban planner to have on the side.
uziq
Member
+284|2091
i don't think anyone here needs to read an article explaining that engineers are autists with zero skills for actual success.

if dilbert's master-race education meant that much, he wouldn't be on here pouring spleen on every other group in society except himself, and moaning frequently about how's he's stuck in a job he hates etc etc. surely he'd be leading a multi-national organization along slick, efficient technocratic lines?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,808|5411|USA

The history majors are obviously a significant roadblock in dilbert's path to power.
uziq
Member
+284|2091
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2018/10 … ayor-know/

In the early morning of Aug. 4, hours before a massive waterfront protest, Portland police officers discovered a group of Patriot Prayer supporters on the roof of a parking garage in downtown. According to a description provided in the mayor's proposed ordinance, the men had a "cache of firearms," which a mayoral staffer would later describe as "long guns."

"Prior to the start of the scheduled demonstrations, police discovered individuals who had positioned themselves on a rooftop parking structure in downtown Portland with a cache of firearms," the ordinance says.

Police say they seized the guns—but could not detain or cite the protesters because they had concealed handgun licenses that allow them to carry the weapons legally. Officials say they later returned the firearms.

A spokeswoman in the mayor's office says Wheeler only learned about the incident on Monday, as he and police compiled a list of events detailed in the proposed ordinance that the city says demonstrates a "pattern of escalation, injury and property damage."

That raises questions about why the mayor didn't know about the right-wing rooftop gun cache until this week—and who did know.
you'd think if a bunch of pro-BLM protestors were caught with a cache of sniper rifles in a city centre, it would make national news ...

donald trump/william barr's federal army pepper sprays a vietnam vet protestor in the face.

https://twitter.com/andrewkimmel/status … 6120904704

why don't dilbert and jay and co. get angry about this sort of thing? it's only when black people ask to be treated as equals that they start writing essays.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-28 12:01:47)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX
That article doesn't make any real sense, long rifles are not covered by concealed carry laws, people are generally free to carry them without any kind of licence. Probably garbled like many news articles.

People in America are allowed to do what they like with their guns, as long as they don't shoot anyone.
The vast bulk of actual shootings are low level criminals killing each other, rednecks and their arsenals typically not.

If anarchists were rioting and setting things on fire in any area the average person might think about some kind of protection for themselves and their property, and we know from BF2 a good solution is a sniper rifle from a rooftop.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+284|2091
wasn't the biggest mass shooting in US history a guy with a cache of weapons on a vantage point over a large crowd?

it's strange that you're so blase about people identifying with far-right fringe groups like the boogaloo boys showing up to large demonstrations with guns. you're surely aware that even being there is an antagonistic and provocative stance, right? it's the usual tit-for-tat between antifas and right-wingers. the difference being, the right-wingers are showing up heavily armed and waving guns around. not very smart, if not outright illegal.

that's because this sort of thing happens.


it's amazing that you'll tut-tut about property damage and graffiti but have no problem with armed goons. i don't think i need to remind you how many people have been killed by 'the hard left' versus 'the hard right' in acts of US domestic terrorism/political violence.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-29 01:56:21)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX
As long as they stay within the law there is no issue.

Compared with people who turn up to damage, destroy and set things on fire  - how long is a 'protest' supposed to go on for?
Epstein didn't kill himself
Larssen
Member
+23|527
If you didn't shun history and read a few books about times of great social upheaval you'd understand this sort of more violent protest is often a necessary part to forcing societal change.
uziq
Member
+284|2091
he hasn't paid any attention to the months of peaceful protests and is still fixated on antifas and one city block in portland. makes sense. it must be nice to stick your head firmly in the sand and refuse to see 100,000s of people's point.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,694|4745|eXtreme to the maX
So reacting with violence is OK?

I'm glad thats settled.

But really, having read history, by 'societal change' through 'violent protest' don't you mean 'overturning the ruling system' or 'revolution'?

What sort of democratic system are the anarchists and the black supremacists planning to replace the US constitution with?
The Zimbabwe plutocratic communism model?
South African nepotism and graft?
A Wakanda-like technocracy?

Historically most internal societal change has been brought about by peaceful protest and democratic action no?
Not violence and riot.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+284|2091
there have been many instances in history where violence has been an understandable, if not always justifiable, reaction.

would you condone violence in the face of stopping totalitarianism? how many times in history has violence or rebellion been used against a tyrant or corrupt system? all bad?

Historically most internal societal change has been brought about by peaceful protest and democratic action no?
Not violence and riot.
LOL no. even in terms of british history, most concessions made had a radical element. and how many peaceful protests were crushed by the authorities, and totally extirpated? how far back do you want to go? miner's strike? battle of orgreave? the peterloo massacre? the levellers and diggers? the chartists? how did women get the vote, remind me?



https://libcom.org/files/images/history/suffragette_arson-1913.jpg

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7ab0053229cce9f078e02a27377703267b1e3eb4/0_268_5100_3060/master/5100.jpg?width=620&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=ef39c8fc7049202898b9d4115fd5eaaa

did you know the first terrorist bombs to go off in the UK in the 20th century were not from irish republicans, but women?

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-29 04:51:00)

uziq
Member
+284|2091
my very favourite thing about dilbert is how much he derides 'history' and 'study of the past' as useless, and then LOVES to make sweeping generalizations, proclamations, and historical judgments that are, quite literally, egregiously incorrect. he loves to pontificate about 'the history of protest' or 'the history of china's relations with the world', like he thinks he knows the political history of africa and can well judge it, when really ... he knows ... less than a high-school student.

it's fucking adorable!

like oh my fucking god, how far back would you have to look through US labour history to realize how many things were achieved by striking or workplace-destroying workers/unions? the west likely wouldn't have a fucking weekend or basic worker rights if it wasn't for someone, somewhere, organizing about it and protesting. instead he gets upset that walls are graffiti'd and windows smashed.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-29 05:00:26)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard