Nothing Really New Here. Confirmation Bias. Dunning-Kruger. Why You Can't Change Peep's Minds.

What Do We Know about Diversity? | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter | The Gl...

EDIT TO ADD:

In my rush to call bullshit on these two 'knuckleheads', I forgot what I just heard Briahna Joy Gray say, over the past couple weeks.  Ivy's "pad" their "diversity" admissions  with foreign born students who usually are from the upper crust of their countries, but just have more melanin than the usual Prep School brats.  There is data that backs this up!  So just about everything these knuckleheads' assert in the vid is bullshit.

Really strange shit going on here.  Do both professors have no fucking idea how either admissions works, generally, or how bell curves work?

I worked in my law school's admission office during my first year.  I became well versed wit the conversion book.  Because a 3.7 GPA from Dartmouth is not the same as a 3.7 GPA from Ball State.  Just saying. And as far as bell curve theory goes?  Kids trying to get into undergrad programs from the 10%  in top 10% schools are more in common than not.  That means the kids  in the 99%tile are not really all that smarter than those in the 90th to 98%tiles.  That is the bell curve part.  Correct me if you got evidence to the contrary.

Kids from the mid never mind bottom of high schools are not coasting into Brown or Columbia.  I dare either professor to check the stats at the schools they work at.  Fuck the anecdotal "evidence."  Go to the admissions department, and if they are not very likely to just spit out the data, makes friends with a work study student.  They know!

When in HS, I did ask for a few Ivy league packets.  Did not even bother to waste my money on the fee.  I did not see myself getting over the other black kids with solid A averages, who likely would be applying, too.  

Thousands of them.  So I am calling bullshit on both professors.  You don't even have to pull out a calculator.  Just think about the context and likely numbers form an objective POV.  Just fucking ignore the fucking white supremacist narrative!

Just another instance of people who should fucking know better than to spit out anecdotal "evidence"  and what people assume is the truth,  who should have done the research before they talk about shit in public.  

Pseudo intellectuals!
 

We Can't Trust All the States to Follow the Requirements of the 13th Amendment.

 And of course it's partner the 14th.  Changing state majorities and top appellate courts are too prone to politics.  Inalienable rights are supposed to be protected better, from such political bullshit.

Iowa Supreme Court says fundamental right to abortion not guaranteed under state constitution

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2022/06/17/iowa-supreme-court-abortion-law-ruling-planned-parenthood-kim-reynolds/7646049001/

They Are Not White Supremacists, Except When They Are?

 https://nypost.com/2022/06/15/team-biden-must-not-fly-black-lives-matter-flags-at-us-embassies/

Talk about mixed messages.  This from in house editorial is so flagrantly white supremacist I call it flat out anti Black and brown hate.  That was published on the 15th.  But on the 18th they published this opinion piece from a writer.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/why-juneteenth-is-as-important-as-the-fourth-of-july/

Whiplash!  Hurts my pretty brain!  The two opinions are so at odds with each other. Even if the writer of the pro Juneteenth piece spends more time white fragility channeling such white supremacist ideas as:

"Right now there is a movement among much of the progressive left to “cancel” our history, "

than he does really getting into the true and obvious importance of Juneteenth.  But he does make the point about it's importance, even if only superficially.

I think the NYP needs a racial issues ombudsman.  I will be happy to take the job for a mere $140,000.00 a year.  Initial contract for two years.   Full payment guaranteed, even if fired for cause, and no waiver of litigation options, and corporate IP rights are limited to a license to use and reuse of work submitted under the contract.  I retain derivative works rights.  

Back to reality though.  When I first encountered the anti Black Lives Matter piece this morning, it was still highlighted on the "front page" on line.  But the link was dead and I had to hunt down the piece.  Granted, my cell phone browser might had to just adjust and update to today's leads.  Part of me hopes that someone there had to good sense to say . . .  that is a very bad look for Juneteenth weekend.  And they deliberately took it off the front page for optics.  However, my question still is:

how the fuck could those educated editors at NYP not get it, that the editorial that they wrote, was blatantly hostile to Black and brown folk?

They clearly need a racial issues ombudsman.  It's not really  giving into  "woke culture" to hire someone to keep the paper from losing respect and readers, by policing it from blatantly obvious, white supremacist bullshit. You would have to be an extremely committed white supremacist to believe it is!

Even When They Get Shit Right, Courts Are Corrupt Institutions.

 

So this Peltier v Charter Day School case proves my point, and specifically, we need judicial opinion reform.   For the briefest of recaps, original case was against a charter school for a mandatory girls wear skirts line in the dress code.

Case ended up in a full court review at the Fed appeals court.  The dress code was ruled again to be unconstitutional because charter schools are taking tax payer money to do tax payer work, and are state actors (as opposed to really private schools.). And as a result, have to follow the Constitution, and shit.

Now the dissent, which gadfly retired constitutional law prof  Ann Althouse was impressed by, was a brain fart of  such spectacular idiocy?  In short, was not based on law, but personal and cultural biases of the judges who signed on to it.

The need for opinion reform.  

Granted, this was a dissent, and usually they are given more leeway for personal delusions and disordered thinking.  However.  If your argument in a dissent basically boils down to liking an idea more than the constitution actually requires a particular result, and the majority decision ignores that and is wrong on the law?  Then keep your stupid admiration and biases the fuck to your self.  Do your fucking job.  As an American taxpayer I pay federal appellate judges to fix errors of law in the lower court, not fucking wax on about what they think about how shit should work.  Fuck their views about policy and social good.  I do not give a fuck about how they think shit should work.  Just do the fucking work.  Fix errors of law, and other errors when important.  Stop trying to set policy and fucking stop using opinions that usually, badly rationalize your biases.

Now part of the dissent sort of tried to maintain some semblance of roots in the law.  Apparently the issue was not crystal clearly previously articulated, that charter schools are state actors under the same legal requirements of actual state run schools.  If they stuck to that, I would have merely disagreed.  But the idiot judge went off on some crack headed defense of not only the skirt rule, but the kind of ignorant thinking that leads to things like the stupid skirt rule.  That is what I'm against here.  If you can make your case based on the law, fine.  If you have to rely on some pulled out of your or someone else's ass, bullshit argument?  You are trying to bullshit me.  I hate bullshit.  I despise bullshit arguments.  And I grade hard.

How Diverse Should Viewpoint Diversity Be? | Glenn Loury & Jonathan Haid...

Glenn Loury admits the dishonest, cowardly, wicked truth about why GOPer who know the party is extreme and intolerant of  diversity of opinion, still vote for them evil fucks.

He goes into some ignorant rant, worthy of drunk uncle on his fifth beer, about  (mi sobrina) AOC and the far left.

As a nearly 60 y.o. progressive left liberal, I describe my status in the Democratic party and that of the rest of our wing, as being permanently seated at the kiddie table for Turkey Day and Xmas. How fucking ignorant need someone be to actually believe the progressives run the Democratic party?

Sub average IQ,  plus five brewskies, plus FNC as your main news source, ignorant.  Or maybe  not ignorant, but actually knows it's bullshit, but for what ever bizzaro reason, still spews that shit, like some parrot on meth.

His histrionic love ode to capitalism was off the hook.  In a very troubling, ugly way.  You really get that passionate about capitalism?  That is abnormal, sir.  Not merely eccentric. Abnormal.  

And to act as if the Democratic party is anti capitalist?  Laughably dishonest.   Keep up with your evil,  dishonest party's current talking points, will you.  

Right Wing million and billionaires, good, left wing ones, bad.  Right Wing corporations, businesses, good, left wing ones,  bad.  

But to be generously fair, it is not as if right wing, Republicans are at all concerned with consistency of message.   

Earlier today, I went on at length on FB on the topic of trolling, and ended with the idea, you should own it and mean it.  I mean to troll Loury here.  I do that not because I think he is that bad a person.  My guess is that he is not that bad a person. 

But I troll him in particular as I believe with out any evidence , but for that part of his public record, and my credentials and experience in deconstructing performance.  I have a degree in theatre.  That is my first career.  In any case, I believe he does not believe in half the political shit he spews.  

I want to say only he knows the truth.  But ya know?  We will never know if he really knows now, will we?

Ann Althouse has a gay son, and is hosting if not promoting homophobia.

 The sordid tale begins with her posing an article about Drag Queen story time, on her blog.  Which, for any of you totally out of the loop, is one of the current . . . hate on different people war, items, currently, waged by hate mongering, right wing fuck faced dicks.  Someone decided it was an easier target to hate on drag queens  than on gays generally.  So here we are, kids.

I am not going long, but will go with the visual form of argument.   Her first poster on her blog went ugly and it got mostly worse from there.   

Oh.  Before the visual evidence.  I will display by printing my own views about drag, to show what is the right way to give voice to not liking drag.  I am not a fan of the entertainment.  But I would not protest against it, just as I would not protest against reality TV. Even if it was The Kardashians.

Son of What Am I Missing? The Highly Suspicious Ilya Shapiro Incident.

 

I don't think I have riffed on this shit here, yet.  But it deserves my cult of free speech treatment.

Nutshell. "Libertarian" asshole lawyer, then at the right wing biased Cato Institute, gets offered a job at Georgetown Law.  It should have been obvious to him, that was a bad fit. The fit is so objectively bad, I will accuse him of at least knowingly setting himself for a potential starring role as a right wing victim (of their own bad judgment,) if not deliberately so. Because right wing victims (of their own bad judgment,) get lauded by other right wingers, as they advance the right wing narrative about how right wingers are victims, ignoring that part abut how they mostly are victims of their own bad judgment.  Shit. Earlier today, I saw a post by Ann Althouse about this asshole, with a link to some interview where the asshole crows about how happy he is to be (finally?)  controlling the narrative.  That is not proof positive this was was a set up, and that he deliberately scammed, punk'd, "owned" Georgetown Law.  But if it quacks like a duck?  Let's move on.

Even before he started his job there, he got in trouble for some white supremacist bullshit he tweeted about how P. Biden would appoint a "lesser Black woman" for the SCOTUS vacancy, than his believed superior candidate, who happens to be a man, but of Indian background.  Like most of them do, this white supremacist denied intent to be taken for a white supremacist, or to deliberately say white supremacists bullshit.  

I can easily believe he knew enough to know talking about a Black woman that way was going to lead to accusations of his being, and/or saying white supremacist bullshit.  He is supposed to be a constitutional law scholar.  Even if he doesn't believe in equal rights for all, he has had to have read about the cases, and has to know.  This is the world we live in, where saying shit like he said will lead to accusations of his being, and/or saying white supremacist bullshit.  

First things first.  Why the fuck are seemingly intelligent people posting their trollish thoughts on Twitter, still?

Secondly, why do well educated, savvy white supremacists opine in public about anything relating to Black or brown men or women?  

Thirdly, how old can someone get before we can judge them harshly not only for what the fuck they say, but the mere fact they get whiny when judged harshly for merely saying anything at all, without any reservation for judging them?  I will say 14.  By the time someone is 14 they (assuming not home schooled,) have been socialized not only to do what they are told, and not give lip to their teachers, but more is the point, they are experienced in being judged by their peers. And other kids too.  And older kids.  That shit can really be merciless.  Point is, at 14 you know the risk!

Back to the individual asshole.  So he got sidelined, and his investigation took until the end of the term, for them to say, opps  sorry.  come on back.  And within a day or two after publicly rejoicing in his vindication, he decided to quit.  And a few days after that, he scored a gig with the right wing biased Manhattan Institute.

All that is just the set up.  Now for my real comment.  the What Part Am I Missing part?


Asshole has been complaining all over the interwebnetubes about how modern academia is too overly populated with like minded liberals.  So he quits the liberal enclave and returns to the comfort of more like minded people, at a right wing biased shop?

And he thinks he is some morally superior creature?

And other like minded people do too?

What am I missing?

An Ex Law Professor Posts a Question on Her Blog.

 "That seems to be the crucial question: Did Trump genuinely know he had lost the election?"

And I answer, thusly:

Asking for the exact number of votes needed to win instead of lose a state, to be "found" by the person in charge of counting the votes?

Remember that?

What Am I Missing?

 Some people, particularly a certain TV journalist named Wallace, are saying it is a bad look for the J6 committee to have . . .  hired a TV professional to produce a TV event.

I am well aware of the views and complaints of the morally depraved right wingers regarding Main Stream Media  and the Democratic Party.  And yet.  I must be missing something.  But remember.  We are talking about, for many of the whiners on this point, a political party that routinely accuses the other one of playing politics.

I don't get that shit either.

What is The Tell of a Pseudo Intellectual, or GOP Politician or Hack? Sophistry!

 Granted, one political party does not use sophistry to the exclusion of the other.  But seems to me, since the very idea behind conservativism is not only flat out evil, but a perfect example of  sophistry?  I am making  point there.  The ideology of that one political party, if there really is anything left that can, by a stretch of the imagination, be considered ideology, at least used to be,  is the fallacious idea that follows.  "The status quo is good, and should be preserved.  The old ways are the best ways."

What sordid bullshit!  10,000 years of human 'civilization'  means 10,000 years of most humans getting fucked in multiple if not all ways possible, to the benefit of a few, wicked, evil fucks.  I see no good in preserving that!  Burn the motherfucker down, metaphorically speaking!

In any case, I just watched a clip of the last "overtime" of the Bill Maher show.  Some dripping prick of a Brit writer for the NY Post made a classic argument in the key of sophistry.  They were winding down a discussion about the Depp/Heard trial, and related ideas such as metoo, and historic male to female sexist abuse.  The dripping prick of a Brit writer argued that yes, the reality of sexist abuse was real, but we should not use wicked Hollywood as the standard for reform and what not.  Even Eric Holder fell for it.  But my pretty brain almost instantly went to . . .  please!  Tell me what industry is better?  

I could end there, but just to drive the point home.  One of the other big stories of the moment is the admissions of Southern Baptists about some numerous and seemingly long tolerated sex abuse patterns and history on the part of its pastors.

If you can't even trust the fucking churches can you trust any one?

Bo Burnham: Edgy Comedian Podcast

Not really political.  And even if the name  "Joe Rogan" goes unsaid?

And that reminds me.  Even if fear him deciding to run for office?  Not as much as I do if Tucker does?  Usually he doesn't even rate my attention.

He has his fans.  So does fart joke.  But for my money, fart jokes have more use.  And at this age, I don't have much use for them, either.

And I am not going to say that anyone who likes his tiny but popular act are no smarter than a bucket full of puke.  I have wide tastes.   Classic Python is timeless!   But anyone who thinks Rogan is actually worth paying attention to, when he talks about anything he really doesn't know about?  And that would have to be most shit?  Well they are no smarter than a bucket full of puke. 

I have been obsessing over pseuo-intellectuals.  And I have been using my tag, "cult of incessant chatter," for at least a year.  And I keep saying shit like most people are no more worth listening to on most shit, than drunk uncle, at his favorite bar, after his fourth beer.  

I really don't get that.  I don't get why so many people seem to enjoy people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about, talk about shit they don't actually know shit about.