🐱 Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
CatParty
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I see the Chinese pilot their ships much like they drive their cars, like absolute maniacs with complete disregard for the safety of others.
ditto
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
PS1gamenwatch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Literally nobody cares about Niggeria, and we should actually just ban that entire country from the Internet in general, since nothing come from it but 419 scams largely targeting elderly people.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2014
This appeared on my radar for some reason, a DJ House from Germany that i usually follow did a charity about it
The about is so horrible, "fags being kicked out of big social media" lol, this forum has documented that they are protected of anything
The team is well... one of the admins is just a little slimmer version of ADF
The place is just Tumblr but 3 times more gayer, scream honeypot and glowops from miles away
The about is so horrible, "fags being kicked out of big social media" lol, this forum has documented that they are protected of anything
The team is well... one of the admins is just a little slimmer version of ADF
The place is just Tumblr but 3 times more gayer, scream honeypot and glowops from miles away
PS1gamenwatch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
WonderWino
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Florida woman is convinced she saw a dinosaur run through her yard
ca.news.yahoo.com
Of course its florida. Its always florida
Florida woman is convinced she saw a baby dinosaur running through her yard
“We are all still convinced it’s a dinosaur!” said the woman who caught creature on camera
Of course its florida. Its always florida
The Valeyard
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
Petty man slammed on TikTok for ridiculous request to friend while splitting dinner bill
A petty friend has been slammed online for asking his mate to pay for the few chips he ate off his plate while the pair were out at dinner.
TikToker Peter, who goes by the username @peterpribylpierdinock, shared a video on the platform of a text message exchange with his friend “Alex”, who was dividing up the bill.
As Alex was calculating how much money each person owed to cover the bill, he asked Peter to pay an extra 47 cents for the chips he ate.
“Hey!! I’m dividing up the dinner bill (right now) You had some of my fries right??? Lol,” Alex wrote, to which Peter replied: “Haha I think I had a couple, why”.
“Ok cool no worries lmao I’ll just (add) like 47 cents to your venmo charge? If that’s cool,” Alex then added.
“So $23.83 total!!! Ur meal + tip + part of my meal that you ate.”
Venmo is a money transfer app used in the US.
In posting the video, Peter said the move was “wayyy too bold”.
The video has since been viewed more than three million times, with other TikTokers slamming Alex’s move.
“Alex values (money) not your time,” one person said.
“How were they not embarrassed trying to pull something like that oh my god,” a second said.
“47 cents is not a bad price to find out what a bad friend Alex is,” a third person said.
Peter later clarified he ate “maybe three fries” off Alex’s plate and only after Alex offered.
“Charge Alex 3 cents for using your data for that message,” one person said.
“If you’re broke Alex just say you’re broke. Or don’t have friends,” another added.
TikToker Peter, who goes by the username @peterpribylpierdinock, shared a video on the platform of a text message exchange with his friend “Alex”, who was dividing up the bill.
As Alex was calculating how much money each person owed to cover the bill, he asked Peter to pay an extra 47 cents for the chips he ate.
“Hey!! I’m dividing up the dinner bill (right now) You had some of my fries right??? Lol,” Alex wrote, to which Peter replied: “Haha I think I had a couple, why”.
“Ok cool no worries lmao I’ll just (add) like 47 cents to your venmo charge? If that’s cool,” Alex then added.
“So $23.83 total!!! Ur meal + tip + part of my meal that you ate.”
Venmo is a money transfer app used in the US.
In posting the video, Peter said the move was “wayyy too bold”.
The video has since been viewed more than three million times, with other TikTokers slamming Alex’s move.
“Alex values (money) not your time,” one person said.
“How were they not embarrassed trying to pull something like that oh my god,” a second said.
“47 cents is not a bad price to find out what a bad friend Alex is,” a third person said.
Peter later clarified he ate “maybe three fries” off Alex’s plate and only after Alex offered.
“Charge Alex 3 cents for using your data for that message,” one person said.
“If you’re broke Alex just say you’re broke. Or don’t have friends,” another added.
Wallace
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2015
How to Make Enemies and Influence People
The Art of Breaking Elite Consensus
The Art of Breaking Elite Consensus
There is a generally accepted consensus that scientists want to advance science. After all, they’re called scientists! “Science” is literally in the name of their profession! Like most generally accepted schools of thought, I think that this one could use a little more examination. Historically speaking, how often have scientists had the best interests of science in mind? And how often have they instead twisted science to serve their own best interests?
During the golden age of Imperial China, the “scientists” of that time were astrologers. As funny as it may seem to us today, astrology was considered a very real science at that time, similar to economics. It required a great deal of mathematical training for astrologers to be able to correctly understand the formulas that were used to calculate the future from the alignment of the stars. Only the smartest students were capable of mastering this field. The most talented astrologers were even selected to join the Imperial Court, where their mathematical formulas would be used to help the emperor set governmental policy, similar to the way that economists help set governmental policy today. Plantings and harvestings and even military decisions were made in consultation with these learned and highly educated folk who were considered the scientists of their era. Of course, today we know that their entire field was just nonsense. The formulas they used to make their predictions may have required very advanced math skill, but they had no connection whatsoever to reality. They could not predict the future, no matter how capably they claimed that their theories and formulas made them able to do so. (Again, note the similarity to modern economics here.)
If you were to go back in time and offer those imperial astrologers proof that their theories were wrong, do you think they would accept it? How likely is it that these expert scientists would allow themselves to come to the consensus that their entire careers were a lie, and that the money, power, and high status that they held in society was completely undeserved? That the best and most altruistic thing that they could do for society was to stop advising the emperor, step down from the seat of power, and admit that their entire field was unscientific nonsense? I don’t think it’s very likely. A lot of scientists claim to have the best interests of science at heart, but they will be very quick to bury the truth if said truth-seeking ever threatens to erode their own wealth, prestige, and status.
During the 1800s, the top scientists of the day were phrenologists. Phrenologists were analogous to the sociologists of our time, in the sense that they studied human intelligence and social psychology. The central hypothesis of their science (I’m totally not kidding here) is that you could understand and map out a person’s intelligence and personality by analysing the shape of their head. This may seem crazy to you or I, but it’s important to realize that during that time phrenologists were considered highly skilled professionals, like sociologists today. Their “insights” were used to help treat many mental and physical ailments. And much like sociologists today, the “expertise” of those in this field was used to justify the governmental policies of the elite, such as the practice of slavery. It was clear to the phrenologists that the shape of African skulls in comparison to Anglo-Saxon skulls was indicative of lower intelligence, which thus justified slavery.
If you were to go back in time and offer those phrenologists proof that their theories were wrong and caused countless amounts of needless human suffering, do you think that they would accept your proof? That the leading experts would confer with each other and say “Well, it’s true that the alternative science being proposed seems a lot more effective than our own. Better admit we’re quacks and phonies, give up all our prestigious careers and money, and go die in poverty now. It’s sad that we have to give up our social standing and luxurious lifestyles, but it’s all for the good of science!” Of course they wouldn’t do that. As we’ve already discussed, the idea that scientists are primarily working in the best interests of science is naive and self-delusional. Scientists do whatever advances their own best interests, and while they may try to align their own best interests with the advancement of science, ultimately their own advancement comes first. This selfish behavior tends to slow down science dramatically, because whenever the consensus of scientific experts is wrong - as it has been many times in the past - the people who are supposed to be in charge of advancing human knowledge end up trying to fight the new scientific paradigm because it is personally inconvenient for them to admit that they were wrong. As a famous physicist once said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” What this statement means is that great leaps forward in science don’t tend to happen because the experts admitted that they were wrong: these leaps happen because the experts die out, and the new generation of experts has less prestige and social status invested in the existing status quo, which makes it easier for them to acknowledge that the existing paradigm is flawed and update to a more advanced paradigm.
So, if we wanted to advance science faster, and initiate a scientific paradigm shift without waiting for the current generation of “experts” to die off, what might be the best way to implement such a change? Once again, I think that history may offer some useful guidance.
In the Middle Ages, the top scientists of their era were alchemists. Alchemy was a pseudoscience which (in theory) allowed the practitioner to make useful chemical formulas with the aid of magic, prayer, and spiritual beings. What made the alchemical paradigm distinct from our previous two examples is that it was quickly and efficiently replaced by chemistry, with very little skepticism or pushback from the elite consensus. What changed? What was different about chemistry that made it so effective at supplanting alchemy, whereas other sciences faced a lot of hostility and pushback from the dominant elite paradigm of that period?
The answer is gunpowder. The science of chemistry was able to be weaponized in a way that made its power undeniable. You see, when a scientific paradigm is determined by the “expert consensus,” that scientific paradigm is very subjective. It is very easy for experts to deny reality and facts if that reality and those facts would be embarrassing to them, and in fact that kind of behavior happens all the time - hence the reason that we have a severe replication crisis in sociology. However, it is very hard for experts to deny reality and facts when the castle that they live in is crumbling to pieces all around them, which tends to happen when your enemy has cannons and you don’t. Gunpowder eliminated the subjectivity of science, because the outcomes were very objective and undeniable. Either you had gunpowder, in which case you survived, or you didn’t have gunpowder, in which case your enemies conquered you. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb would say, the invention of gunpowder ensured that the existing elites suddenly had skin in the game. Regardless of how embarrassing it might have been for them to admit that their “expert consensus” was wrong, they didn’t have the option of denying the superiority of chemistry because failing to accept that reality would result in their civilization collapsing. No matter how arrogant an “expert” you may be, no matter how convinced you are that your ideas are the best and the upstarts challenging you are wrong, there is nothing less subjective and more undeniably real than a cannonball flying right through your wall.
The moral of the story is simple. If you develop a new science that is vastly superior to the one currently in vogue with the “expert consensus,” don’t even bother trying to convince the experts that you are right and they are wrong. The experts won’t ever willingly admit that their paradigm is wrong, because it would be deeply humiliating for them to admit that they got upstaged by a layman. Instead, weaponize your science and spread it freely. Then the experts will have no choice but to accept your paradigm’s superiority, because societies or groups that don’t accept the validity of the new science will be very quickly destroyed by natural selection. “Evolve or die” may sound like a cruel thing to say, but when presented with this stark option, most societies will choose to evolve very rapidly.
During the golden age of Imperial China, the “scientists” of that time were astrologers. As funny as it may seem to us today, astrology was considered a very real science at that time, similar to economics. It required a great deal of mathematical training for astrologers to be able to correctly understand the formulas that were used to calculate the future from the alignment of the stars. Only the smartest students were capable of mastering this field. The most talented astrologers were even selected to join the Imperial Court, where their mathematical formulas would be used to help the emperor set governmental policy, similar to the way that economists help set governmental policy today. Plantings and harvestings and even military decisions were made in consultation with these learned and highly educated folk who were considered the scientists of their era. Of course, today we know that their entire field was just nonsense. The formulas they used to make their predictions may have required very advanced math skill, but they had no connection whatsoever to reality. They could not predict the future, no matter how capably they claimed that their theories and formulas made them able to do so. (Again, note the similarity to modern economics here.)
If you were to go back in time and offer those imperial astrologers proof that their theories were wrong, do you think they would accept it? How likely is it that these expert scientists would allow themselves to come to the consensus that their entire careers were a lie, and that the money, power, and high status that they held in society was completely undeserved? That the best and most altruistic thing that they could do for society was to stop advising the emperor, step down from the seat of power, and admit that their entire field was unscientific nonsense? I don’t think it’s very likely. A lot of scientists claim to have the best interests of science at heart, but they will be very quick to bury the truth if said truth-seeking ever threatens to erode their own wealth, prestige, and status.
During the 1800s, the top scientists of the day were phrenologists. Phrenologists were analogous to the sociologists of our time, in the sense that they studied human intelligence and social psychology. The central hypothesis of their science (I’m totally not kidding here) is that you could understand and map out a person’s intelligence and personality by analysing the shape of their head. This may seem crazy to you or I, but it’s important to realize that during that time phrenologists were considered highly skilled professionals, like sociologists today. Their “insights” were used to help treat many mental and physical ailments. And much like sociologists today, the “expertise” of those in this field was used to justify the governmental policies of the elite, such as the practice of slavery. It was clear to the phrenologists that the shape of African skulls in comparison to Anglo-Saxon skulls was indicative of lower intelligence, which thus justified slavery.
If you were to go back in time and offer those phrenologists proof that their theories were wrong and caused countless amounts of needless human suffering, do you think that they would accept your proof? That the leading experts would confer with each other and say “Well, it’s true that the alternative science being proposed seems a lot more effective than our own. Better admit we’re quacks and phonies, give up all our prestigious careers and money, and go die in poverty now. It’s sad that we have to give up our social standing and luxurious lifestyles, but it’s all for the good of science!” Of course they wouldn’t do that. As we’ve already discussed, the idea that scientists are primarily working in the best interests of science is naive and self-delusional. Scientists do whatever advances their own best interests, and while they may try to align their own best interests with the advancement of science, ultimately their own advancement comes first. This selfish behavior tends to slow down science dramatically, because whenever the consensus of scientific experts is wrong - as it has been many times in the past - the people who are supposed to be in charge of advancing human knowledge end up trying to fight the new scientific paradigm because it is personally inconvenient for them to admit that they were wrong. As a famous physicist once said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” What this statement means is that great leaps forward in science don’t tend to happen because the experts admitted that they were wrong: these leaps happen because the experts die out, and the new generation of experts has less prestige and social status invested in the existing status quo, which makes it easier for them to acknowledge that the existing paradigm is flawed and update to a more advanced paradigm.
So, if we wanted to advance science faster, and initiate a scientific paradigm shift without waiting for the current generation of “experts” to die off, what might be the best way to implement such a change? Once again, I think that history may offer some useful guidance.
In the Middle Ages, the top scientists of their era were alchemists. Alchemy was a pseudoscience which (in theory) allowed the practitioner to make useful chemical formulas with the aid of magic, prayer, and spiritual beings. What made the alchemical paradigm distinct from our previous two examples is that it was quickly and efficiently replaced by chemistry, with very little skepticism or pushback from the elite consensus. What changed? What was different about chemistry that made it so effective at supplanting alchemy, whereas other sciences faced a lot of hostility and pushback from the dominant elite paradigm of that period?
The answer is gunpowder. The science of chemistry was able to be weaponized in a way that made its power undeniable. You see, when a scientific paradigm is determined by the “expert consensus,” that scientific paradigm is very subjective. It is very easy for experts to deny reality and facts if that reality and those facts would be embarrassing to them, and in fact that kind of behavior happens all the time - hence the reason that we have a severe replication crisis in sociology. However, it is very hard for experts to deny reality and facts when the castle that they live in is crumbling to pieces all around them, which tends to happen when your enemy has cannons and you don’t. Gunpowder eliminated the subjectivity of science, because the outcomes were very objective and undeniable. Either you had gunpowder, in which case you survived, or you didn’t have gunpowder, in which case your enemies conquered you. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb would say, the invention of gunpowder ensured that the existing elites suddenly had skin in the game. Regardless of how embarrassing it might have been for them to admit that their “expert consensus” was wrong, they didn’t have the option of denying the superiority of chemistry because failing to accept that reality would result in their civilization collapsing. No matter how arrogant an “expert” you may be, no matter how convinced you are that your ideas are the best and the upstarts challenging you are wrong, there is nothing less subjective and more undeniably real than a cannonball flying right through your wall.
The moral of the story is simple. If you develop a new science that is vastly superior to the one currently in vogue with the “expert consensus,” don’t even bother trying to convince the experts that you are right and they are wrong. The experts won’t ever willingly admit that their paradigm is wrong, because it would be deeply humiliating for them to admit that they got upstaged by a layman. Instead, weaponize your science and spread it freely. Then the experts will have no choice but to accept your paradigm’s superiority, because societies or groups that don’t accept the validity of the new science will be very quickly destroyed by natural selection. “Evolve or die” may sound like a cruel thing to say, but when presented with this stark option, most societies will choose to evolve very rapidly.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2019
Australia for a country supposedly descended from convicts is quite the sissified nanny state. You have to wear a bicycle helmet by law there.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2019
Psychological need for wardens.
PS1gamenwatch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2019
Hard times cycle and all that.
Senate unanimously passes a bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday
The Senate unanimously passed a resolution on Tuesday establishing June 19 as Juneteenth National Independence Day, a US holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
Tucker Carlson Tonight 6/15/21 - FBI was organizing the Jan 6th protest and promoted violence as agents undercover in the Oath Keepers. - TheDonald
The Donald is a never-ending rally of patriots dedicated to the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
patriots.win
Tucker Carlson making a public claim that the FBI was behind 1/6, complete with them having moles in the Oath Keepers trying to incite violence. With evidence.
I.e., Trump's FBI faked an insurrection to frame the Right and prevent any objection to the stolen election.
NOW WE HAVE PROOF: FBI and DHS Attempted to Recruit Green Beret to Infiltrate Oath Keepers Before Jan. 6 Riot -- AND HE RECORDED IT
Throughout 2020 the Black Lives Matter terrorist group was linked to conservatively 91% of the riots that resulted in the most expensive property damage in US insurance history There were zero Trump rallies that turned violent during that same time period. Then on January 6, after one million...
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2021
Here is an interesting article from the past:
The Yale Daily News from 29 February 1972
Yale Group Spurs Mao's Emergence.
ydnhistorical.library.yale.edu
Maybe the ChiComs were the real Skull and Bonesman all along.
The Yale Daily News from 29 February 1972
Yale Group Spurs Mao's Emergence.
The Yale Daily News 29 February 1972 — Yale Daily News Historical Archive
Yale Daily News Historical Archive
Maybe the ChiComs were the real Skull and Bonesman all along.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2020
https://morelle.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-joe-morelle-introduces-fair-repair-act / Archive
Democratic Congressmen Joe Morelle from the 25th District of New York introduced the Fair Repair Act bill. The bill says that manufacturers would be required to diagnostic repair information, parts, and tools readily available to small businesses and consumers. If say your parts breaks and you don't have the money to send it to a manufacture to fix, you will have the information to do it yourself at a smaller cost.
Thoughts on this? Of course, this from Joe Morelle from one of the most pozzed states in the country so it's natural to be skeptical. Still, worth posting just to see what others think of it.
Democratic Congressmen Joe Morelle from the 25th District of New York introduced the Fair Repair Act bill. The bill says that manufacturers would be required to diagnostic repair information, parts, and tools readily available to small businesses and consumers. If say your parts breaks and you don't have the money to send it to a manufacture to fix, you will have the information to do it yourself at a smaller cost.
Thoughts on this? Of course, this from Joe Morelle from one of the most pozzed states in the country so it's natural to be skeptical. Still, worth posting just to see what others think of it.
PS1gamenwatch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
It is right Juneteenth is now a holiday, but it risks becoming weaponized to promulgate division rather than celebrating unity
The new federal holiday has sparked fears among some that it may end up dividing Americans along racial lines rather than uniting them in celebrating a constitutional promise being upheld.
It is right Juneteenth is now a holiday, but it risks becoming weaponized to promulgate division rather than celebrating unity
The new federal holiday has sparked fears among some that it may end up dividing Americans along racial lines rather than uniting them in celebrating a constitutional promise being upheld.
The United States Constitution states that all men are granted inalienable rights by their creator, and thus have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It goes without saying that slavery, by its very definition, infringed upon every one of those rights, which is why Abraham Lincoln pushed for the abolition of slavery so hard he declared war on half the country. He succeeded, and the abolition of slavery is marked by a day known as Juneteenth (a portmanteau of June and ninteenth, the date it is celebrated), and Joe Biden recently signed a law making it a federal holiday.
However, the federal government didn’t simply call the act instituting the new holiday the ‘Juneteenth Act’, but the ‘Juneteenth National Independence Day Act’.The problem is Americans already have an Independence Day, the Fourth of July, that marks our declaration of independence from the British Empire in 1776. The choice of title is clearly deliberate, because it could just as easily have been called Juneteenth Emancipation Day, and my issue with the chosen title is that it seems to have been picked with the intention of dividing Americans along racial lines. This is the antithesis of what the day is celebrating.
It goes without saying that the emancipation of slaves in America should be celebrated. However, trying to make it effectively an alternative Independence Day misses the point of what abolitionists like Frederick Douglass argued for. Throughout his many speeches, Douglass often referenced the Constitution and its definition of rights. The argument was that slavery was a violation of the rights the constitution promises to uphold. Slavery was and is antithetical to American principles. He was right.
Nearly a hundred years later, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made those same arguments against Jim Crow, and he was also correct. Failure to adhere to these principles, which were first espoused by John Locke in the 1600s, was why slavery persisted, applying them correctly was why emancipation happened. We must not forget that. But forgetting the founding principles of the United States, or willfully misrepresenting them, seems to be common among many left wing Americans who are desperate to argue the nation is and always has been rotten to the core.
The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment should not be used to segregate black from white Americans with another Independence Day. Rather, Juneteenth should be a day where we all realize that there is a duty as Americans to remember that we are all created equal and deserve to have our rights preserved and protected by our government. Those were the words and principles that carved the foundation of this nation, and they apply to all of us. This new holiday should be a celebration of the USA coming together but I fear that people will use it to try and divide the races again.
This is not what people like Douglass or Dr. King wanted for Americans. In his speech, ‘What to the Slave is the Fourth of July’, you don't find Frederick Douglass calling for a separate holiday, but true inclusion in the already established Independence Day. In his ‘I have a Dream’ speech, you find Dr. King asking for race to become an irrelevance in US society, not a defining characteristic. Both men recognized the principles of the United States, and desired equality. Separate but equal was the cry of Jim Crow. Dr. King and Frederick Douglass wanted to be equal in the eyes of the law, just as they were in the eyes of God.
I want to celebrate Juneteenth and look on it as I always have. I want other Americans to do the same. It is not a day that should be used to divide Americans from one another based on their skin color. How does suggesting there are effectively separate black and white Independence Days unite the nation?
That specter of segregation deserves to stay dead in the tomb of Jim Crow. I want to look at Juneteenth as a day where a promise was fulfilled for all Americans, where no man was slave to another. Where we could all put aside our differences, and be part of the greater picture that is the United States of America.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
No he didn't. He quite literally only made the Emancipation Proclamation against the Confederate states, leaving slavery at least for the time untouched in border states that still had slavery. "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Arguably, he was being disingenuous and intended to end slavery altogether after the war, but it is an undisputed fact that he actually did not. He also did not "declare war on half the country." The state of war was caused by the South's own actions in preemptively attacking Fort Sumter after seceding. Lincoln actually took military action in response before Congress declared war, since it is not the President who has the Constitutional authority to issue a formal declaration of war.
Imagine getting this much basic shit so completely wrong in so few words.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2017
Here's some chinese state propaganda