diffrinse

Unlike the movies, The Watchmen graphic novel takes the time to point out Veidt's homage

The article highlights the warrant and application of Feds is to investigate and eliminate gangs, not the protests. It might end up targeting protestors anyway, but they're using the cover of Chicago's annual summer murder rate spike (which has been going on since I was a child in the early 90s at least).

Maybe this is where USPS' money went

I'd argue pop culture started catching on when The Sopranos aired

> 9 times out of 10, it’s racialized genetics

Which is basically metaphysics, but stop and reflect on the Nick Cannon's discourse, and it's the same thing, racialized genetics.

Now stop and reflect on the El Paso's shooter's Death Letter and what was it? Racialized genetics.

It's all just good ol' Scholastic metaphysics of substances straight from the middle ages, just veiled in a mish-mash of pseudo-scientific and teleological rhetoric.

I don't think there's enough thought about why these ideas wield a near-monopoloy on thinking in the domain of race?

> Wow, talk about a word-salad to defend privelege.

"I'm on the right side of history, and for other people like me, here is how to navigate this trying persecution".

It's also clear that you can replace the term "orthodox privledge" with "perspective" and the good parts of the article would make complete sense while excluding the rather uncritical parts, since their substance largely hinges on the rhetorical value of this weaponized spin on the term privilege.

What's funny is he has no idea this entire elaboration can be perfectly applied to himself since, again, the whole thing lives-or-dies on the implicit perspective that he, or whatever persecuted idea(s), is on the "right side of history. Like, which perspective is defining orthodox?

Whatever Happened to Edith Finch?

As a follow-up, Aristophanes made it a point to underline Socrates' ugliness in his depiction of him in The Clouds

Brock Lesnar is what broke UFC through. Then Ronda Rousey and Conor McGregor gave us the current era we have today.

Ehhh, it's specifically the case that the fall from middle-class to poor is steeper for Black folk for what should be obvious reasons. Most of our middle class comes from our working class rather than inheriting the position [0]

[0]https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/01...

Nietzsche claimed Socrates' renowned and profound ugliness would've been seen as an implicit argument against him in his trial since ancient Athenian culture openly associated ugliness with untrustworthiness.

Fascinating myth that we all keep telling each other and ourselves that we fully own all our desires and behaviors. Western secular life continues to betray itself as a species of Christianity. European antiquity had no notion of this kind of counter-social autonomy (and no, that's not what Stoicism is about, much as people are mining it for the same gold they were trying to get out of Buddhism and Taosim in the 80s/90s). Then you read through Levi-Straussian anthropology and realize its probably the case most, if not all, cultures on Earth don't sport this peculiarity. So many moral/ethical concepts in the West, and American culture in particular as it seemingly double-downs on most sof it, are just straight up blind alleys.

Not only political correctness, but the fascination with erecting cultural walls.

I would add that human beings consider "social fitness" as well, and are cousin species, Chimpanzees and Bonobos (contrary to the idea they've evolved to be peace-loving 'hippies'), also gang up on the weakest members of the band.

Nothing more beautifully concise than the robustness of wild life

> Hell, they used to do this with other humans..

There are enough that still explicitly do and another set that uses things like Evo Psych, IQ testing, and renewed interest in Non-African human origin and arguments that humans aren't a single species (since species isn't an exact term to begin with) to imply the same.

Well, at least we got over phrenology... right?

Question, are the studies telling us IQ is heritable or telling us a dumb person can't have smart kids?

On election night I recall the CNN anchors interviewing voters and getting "He's a straight shooter"/"honest" a whole lot.

What's ironic about America is that working class White and Black folk are both weary of white-collar professionals telling them what to do. Strangely, neither group thinks of businessmen or other instances of rich people as white-collar (both groups express veneration for the "businessman"/"hustler"), as somehow closer to themselves and values than middle-class professionals (like Obama).

Class underwrites so much in this country, but because class discussion has largely and for the most part been verboten since the 50s, we instead get this weird conflation of race and class.

This gets even more interesting when you realize Official BLM is just the bourgeois representation of working-class Black interests and there are many many YouTube videos of those Black interests expressing exactly that[0].

Of course, people think all Black people must be one big monolith, both owing to de facto segregation and the loudest minority problem, (they simply don't know enough Black people) because that's what Bourgeois profiteers want you to think; just like how people still actually think there was an clear, firm relationship between the protests and the riots, as much as protesters want to claim there is in order to hold some vague threat of further violence when they in all likelihood were not also the ones doing the rioting and vice versa.

[0] Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YcB1pJ69A

Yikes, that's embarrassing, could you possibly clarify your meaning? My point was that communicative strategy changes significantly depending on whether you account for the other person also having a perspective which is also a product of history

Or, put another way, you can't say one side's behavior is historically determined but not the other's.

This is usually how gang initiations are executed.

Strange that no one seems to ask whether the strident militancy is the perceived proportional response to a culture that at the level of public response doesn't seem to really care about the ongoing deprivation and harassment of the majority of Black America, the transparency of which was greatly accelerated by the growth of social media.

Poor Black folk in America aren't the only minority that ever rioted over perceived oppression. It's fascinating that in all this hangup over moral scrutiny no one seems to be able to recall the Paris Riots of 2005, which were a much greater feat of destruction of property on the part of Arab and North African minorities after police were deemed responsible for the deaths of ethnic teens.

Then, just as now, the majority ethnic French response was to sit around talking about why the crazy Brown people weren't formulating any concrete political demands in terms French institutions recognized, e.g., they're not communicating in our language so whatever..

Who is actually being intolerant and refusing to listen? It takes two to bare themselves as anyone in a long-term marriage would know. I don't think the rhetorical tactics of the social media Left are particularly well thought out but they're not without intelligibility either, and to refuse that this is not the case strikes me as just as much a lack of empathy, compassion, and ultimately, intolerance.

Edit: Also, Shklar's use of Nietzsche here is just hilarious. Nietzsche's political opinions are much more aligned with those of Carl Schmitt in that both think Republican Democracy is a sham, at best, since it attempts to pretend the problem of sovereign exception doesn't exist in order to fool people into thinking everyone has equal political power, and by derivation, antithetical to human flourishing. Both thought some form of neo-monarchy ("Great Politics" in Nietzsche, of whom Napoleon was the last vestige of in his mind) was the next step for governance in the West.

Not to mention both are sensitive to the fact that Western secular life is actually a species of Western Christianity, so its not like the criticism raised against "wokeness" are exclusive

>I'd hypothesize that this comes out of the fact that this is rooted in the idea that "the personal is political".

A lot of these concepts are derived from the French historian Michel Foucault (he was not a philosopher or a "critical theorist", he was the chair of history at a major French university) and bear out the interpretations that won out in American humanities departments and trickled down to street level as a generation of grad students hit the streets after 2008 as humanities depts shuttered left and right.

Occupy Wall Street wouldn't happen today because it was the last vestige of '68 style old school European Left politics. In 2008, good ol' class consciousness was the last thing critical theory and Humanities depts were discussing. 'Identity politics', itself the evolution of 80/90s Critical Race Theory, had already started to dominate academic circles in the late 90s/early 00s, to the point that the popular, heralded Slovenian Marxist Slavoj Zizek dedicated a whole book to the topic, arguing on behalf of good ol' universality as pivot point for politics against popular writers like Judith Butler (gender/sexuality) and Wendy Brown (race).

Coming to software as I did from continental European philosophy study it's been quite fascinating watch a species of Foucault interpretation become the mainstream Left ideology in America (and one that differs in my reading by quite a bit).

But this is a niche application of TypeScript, most day-to-day front-end devs I've interviewed aren't reaching for fp-ts, let alone io-ts, whatever the benefits.

Even then, why not just use any one of Elm, PureScript, Reason, ScalaJS, etc? Why implement yet another FP runtime? If something like this is the surest way to make optimal use of TypeScript then I feel like we're just right back where we started.

For most devs, I'd wager they're still ending up writing all the same tests they were before TypeScript.

tsc even offers to just consume jsdoc annotations for crying out loud. If its just some kind of type convention sandbox, what did it really bring to the table?

I'm a little shocked at some of the outcry in this thread. People are making it sound like they're switching from Rust to Ruby or extolling the virtues of types: TypeScript does absolutely nothing for you at runtime. There are no types, there are no type checks, its all the same guarantees as good ol' JavaScript. You still can't trust function parameters to be what they say. It's a Babel configuration with inline doc annotations.

If people are serious about types, then why isn't more front-end moving over to Elm, Reason, PureScript, OCaml etc? Hell, GWT is still out here even. TypeScript has convinced people they're getting the benefits of (strong?) types when they're just populating the auto-complete in VS Code.

From a frontend dev perspective a complex system like a living human being is nature's monolith of legacy hacks on top of legacy hacks, but you're damn right it holds up under millions of requests per second

Personally as a continental philosophy academic prior to software, its fascinating that a species of Michel Foucault interpretation became the predominant Liberal/Progressive discourse

The problem to me isn't so much hype trains for this or that framework but that, as a Front-Ender myself, many Front-End Devs don't know how to do anything without a framework; the person I report to, the Front-End Manager, had been mucking about with jQuery for 15 years straight and didn't know about CSS animations.

I was able to work alongside a very saavy consultant for a year when I started out who I feel pointed me in the right direction wrt coding 'from the problem itself', if you will, but they'd have me do interviews and I'd be astounded at what applicants didn't know or grasp who'd been doin this front-end thing much longer than I.

If there were better solution design pedagogy instead of React's original marketing of "We know better about efficient DOM updates than you" I think you'd see substantially less reliance on these types of things, and probably a lot less unmaintainable code disguised as maintainable because it uses "a framework".

I should add that when I say rules, I mean rules that can be described mathematically.

I hope someone with more time for these kinds of subjects can correct any inaccuracies