Wokeism of the day Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users

EmmetSpiceland · 09-09-2020 11:47am

nthclare wrote: »

I think this thread is a great idea, because it'll stop people from getting banned from other thread's.

It's a great place to share one's thoughts on the stupidity of the woke culture...

Have you checked out the “Current Affairs” forum, N?

nthclare · 09-09-2020 12:32pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Have you checked out the “Current Affairs” forum, N?

Not yet, is it worth checking out ?

cdeb · 09-09-2020 12:45pm

Cordell wrote: »

And some of those people are right for the right reasons: 2+2 is not always 4, depending on the context, the cartoon explains the most obvious case.

2+2 is always 4. The cartoon thinks it's being smart, but isn't. 10 in base 4 is this many - .... - not this many - .......... - so the fundamental mathematical law remains; two plus two is four. Just because you've changed to base 4 doesn't alter the basic maths.

It is true that two apples plus two oranges don't equal four apples - but again, maths is always clear that you have to add like to like. 20 + 2 doesn't equal 4 because you want to add the two 2s together. One is two tens and one is two units so they can't be added together. Two apples plus two oranges does give four pieces of fruit, however.

I know it's only a handful of nuts on the internet, but if the cartoon is wrong, there's no point you saying it's right.

So yes, two plus two equals four is always true. You could in fact define four as being two plus two. If you want to give "four" a different name - such as 10 in base 4 - then fine, but that's just changing names, not the underlying facts. You may as well say that 2+2 = Ceathar, and so therefore isn't always equal to 4.

EmmetSpiceland · 09-09-2020 1:10pm

nthclare wrote: »

Not yet, is it worth checking out ?

I wouldn’t be its biggest “fan” but it does serve an important purpose.

It’s a place where you can “air” your views, ones that may be deemed “unsavoury” in polite society.
Also, the moderators, to their credit, let a lot of things go that wouldn’t be tolerated in other, more normal, forums.

To be perfectly honest, at times the place makes me despair for humanity but then I remember that if this site were representative of society Peter Casey would be President, so it’s really just a case of the “vocal minority” screaming into the void.

Hego Damask · 09-09-2020 1:18pm

2+2 = 5 , popular mechanics was publishing it and that is scary as it's a serious magazine - it was a fantastic science magazine until now.

The idiots that believe this I would love if they were underpaid one week, and for the employer to say, yes but you are using white supremacy maths to add up the hours .... in the new woke maths 40hours * $10 = $300

They's soon f*cking cop on!!

Errashareesh · 09-09-2020 1:32pm

CarProblem wrote: »

It's not but its convenient to dismiss people who go against the trendy bollox as "angry" - saves them having to actually debate with you.

Yep. I too used to dismiss concerns about excessive language and ideas policing - as just a fringe thing, as something right-wing conservatives enjoyed getting riled up about.

Not just the above any more though. Commercial enterprises, media outlets and some state backed agencies are pandering to distortion of reality. This is something to be afraid about.

cdeb · 09-09-2020 1:39pm

I should add on that cartoon actually that to say 2+2=4 (mod 3) is just wrong. (That bit was really confusing me for a while!)

I think what he's saying is 4 mod 3, but that's 1, not 2+2. This is because 3 goes into 4 once with a remainder (modulo) of 1.

In any event, it should be obvious that "4 (mod 3)" is no more the same thing as "4" than "rapist" is the same thing as "therapist" just because they share some characters.

Cordell · 09-09-2020 1:40pm

cdeb wrote: »

2+2 is always 4. The cartoon thinks it's being smart, but isn't. 10 in base 4 is this many - .... - not this many - .......... - so the fundamental mathematical law remains; two plus two is four. Just because you've changed to base 4 doesn't alter the basic maths.

It is true that two apples plus two oranges don't equal four apples - but again, maths is always clear that you have to add like to like. 20 + 2 doesn't equal 4 because you want to add the two 2s together. One is two tens and one is two units so they can't be added together. Two apples plus two oranges does give four pieces of fruit, however.

I know it's only a handful of nuts on the internet, but if the cartoon is wrong, there's no point you saying it's right.

So yes, two plus two equals four is always true. You could in fact define four as being two plus two. If you want to give "four" a different name - such as 10 in base 4 - then fine, but that's just changing names, not the underlying facts. You may as well say that 2+2 = Ceathar, and so therefore isn't always equal to 4.

10 is ********** in base 10 and **** in base 4 and ** in base 2. We assume base 10 normally, but if the context is base 4 then 2+2=10. Where 10 means **** and the cartoon never implies otherwise.

cdeb · 09-09-2020 1:41pm

Cordell wrote: »

10 is ********** in base 10 and **** in base 4 and ** in base 2. We assume base 10 normally, but if the context is base 4 then 2+2=10. Where 10 means ****.

Yes, but you've missed the entire point.

10 in base 4 is ****

Which is four

You can give it a different name if you want (like ceathar), but it doesn't change the fundamental truth that 2+2 always = 4

kowloon · 09-09-2020 1:56pm

.anon. wrote: »

Exactly. Women aren't people.

I'm glad someone finally had the guts to say it.

Cordell · 09-09-2020 2:43pm

cdeb wrote: »

Yes, but you've missed the entire point.

10 in base 4 is ****

Which is four

You can give it a different name if you want (like ceathar), but it doesn't change the fundamental truth that 2+2 always = 4

10 in base 4 in ten, this is how you read it.
Ten in base 4 means ****. In my line of work 10 also means ** and **************** depending on the context.

Again, normally we assume base 10 so this is why 10 means **********, but this is an abstract representation in which we assign meaning to the figures composing the number and their position in the number itself.
We may even say that numbers are a social construct :cool:

cdeb · 09-09-2020 2:49pm

It doesn't matter how you read it - I wouldn't read it as "ten" btw, but let's allow you to do so for convenience - because that doesn't change the bottom meaning/logic.

Which is - and it seems you're trying to argue against this - that 2+2 always = 4. The fact that you want to change base - or switch apples and oranges, or abuse the modulo function - doesn't change the basic logic behind the maths.

The cartoon is not correct, as you suggest. It's bad maths.

Cordell · 09-09-2020 3:00pm

I wouldn't read it as "ten" btw

How would you read it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-09-2020 3:03pm

cdeb wrote: »

It doesn't matter how you read it - I wouldn't read it as "ten" btw, but let's allow you to do so for convenience - because that doesn't change the bottom meaning/logic.

Which is - and it seems you're trying to argue against this - that 2+2 always = 4. The fact that you want to change base - or switch apples and oranges, or abuse the modulo function - doesn't change the basic logic behind the maths.

The cartoon is not correct, as you suggest. It's bad maths.

That "2+2 is actually 5, so ha!" debacle was embarrassing for all involved. Well, not for the people who calmly pointed out why it was bunkum, but for everyone else. I'm trying to think what made me cringe about it so much and it's the desperation that was involved. What were they hoping to achieve with such convoluted wankery?

cdeb · 09-09-2020 3:12pm

Cordell wrote: »

How would you read it?

"One-oh" or "One-zero". Or even "four"

Would you read 103 (ie 19 in base 4) as one hundred and three? Or would you read 7.103 as "Seven point one hundred and three"? Unlikely. So why mix up numbers here?

Regardless, as I've already said, how you pronounce it isn't relevant. The fact is that 10 in base 4 is just another way of saying 4. So 2+2 still equals 4.

timmyntc · 09-09-2020 3:19pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Weight Watchers was renamed as WW, because, you know...

and despite it being initials now, it takes twice as long to say

"Quadruple-u" is faster than weight watchers

Gregor Samsa · 09-09-2020 3:28pm

Cordell wrote: »

10 in base 4 in ten, this is how you read it.
Ten in base 4 means ****. In my line of work 10 also means ** and **************** depending on the context.

Again, normally we assume base 10 so this is why 10 means **********, but this is an abstract representation in which we assign meaning to the figures composing the number and their position in the number itself.
We may even say that numbers are a social construct :cool:

The whole argument depends on mixing up numerals with numbers. In base 10, they're the same thing. In any other base system, they're not. You can't go mixing the meaning of numbers in one base system with the numerals in another. It's like claiming that the word "gift" in English means "poison". It does in German, but that has no bearing on it's use in English, just because the two words are written or even pronounced the exact same. 10 in base 4 is a completely different number to 10 in base 10, despite being composed of the same numerals - even if you pronounce them the same.

Numbers aren't social constructs. It doesn't matter what system or culture you're using, the number of apples in your bag is the same once you agree on the definition of "apple", "in" and "bag". What you call that number, and how you represent it - the name or numeral - is a social construct. But that's saying a very different thing.

At best, it's a linguistic trick. At worst, it's a dishonesty exploiting deficiencies in nomenclature. But it's not anything to do with the structure of mathematics itself.

SlowMotion321 · 09-09-2020 3:34pm

Errashareesh wrote: »

Yep. I too used to dismiss concerns about excessive language and ideas policing - as just a fringe thing, as something right-wing conservatives enjoyed getting riled up about.

Not just the above any more though. Commercial enterprises, media outlets and some state backed agencies are pandering to distortion of reality. This is something to be afraid about.

Language has always been something to be feared and loved, used and exploited! I love language, I love words, I understand that both evolve much as I might not like it! I abhor text/leet/woke/politically friendly speek! IMHO and it is only IMHO I speak to, if your grasp of language is sufficient to be called an upright cogent vertebrate then you can read between the lines without the need for someone to point out what is the right thing to say and what is wrong! When someone starts doing that what they are really doing is telling you what to think! When you look into the abyss..........

BattleCorp · 09-09-2020 3:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful. Pathetic shoehorning and tokenism is the way forward apparently.

Absolutely ridiculous.

The best film in the world won't get nominated for an Oscar if it's set in a rural Irish village during the 2nd century as there's likely to be no black/asian people etc.

Similarly a movie set on Easter Island 1000 years ago can't be nominated due to no diversity in the cast.

cdeb · 09-09-2020 3:37pm

I think diversity in the cast isn't required.

It's just diversity in some of the lower-level behind the scenes employees.

Which I still don't really agree with - it sets out that certain people should be treated differently, which is intrinsically racist - but at least it's not as bad as saying the cast must be a certain percentage white/black/etc

SlowMotion321 · 09-09-2020 3:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful. Pathetic shoehorning and tokenism is the way forward apparently.

Leave lord of the rings out of it! We all know what the subtext was about!

Cordell · 09-09-2020 3:40pm

10 in base 4 is a completely different number to 10 in base 10, despite being composed of the same numerals - even if you pronounce them the same.

I never said anything to suggest that it is.

It's like claiming that the word "gift" in English means "poison"

Or this

Numbers aren't social constructs

That was a joke and hinted as such.

I never claimed that the structure of mathematics is relative or not well defined.

My only point is that some people don't know anything about other bases and assume that something like 2 + 2 = 10 is just completely wrong. That's it, no more to it.

cdeb · 09-09-2020 3:44pm

Cordell wrote: »

I never said anything to suggest that it is.

Yes you did. You said -

And some of those people are right for the right reasons: 2+2 is not always 4, depending on the context, the cartoon explains the most obvious case

2+2 is always 4. If you want to express that in base 4 and stylise it as 10, that's fine - but it is still equal to the concept we usually call "4". The cartoon is wrong.

SlowMotion321 · 09-09-2020 3:46pm

cdeb wrote: »

Yes you did. You said -

2+2 is always 4. If you want to express that in base 4 and stylise it as 10, that's fine - but it is still equal to the concept we usually call "4". The cartoon is wrong.

I guess you could say "It's all about the base, 'bout the base....."

BattleCorp · 09-09-2020 3:47pm

cdeb wrote: »

I think diversity in the cast isn't required.

It's just diversity in some of the lower-level behind the scenes employees.

Which I still don't really agree with - it sets out that certain people should be treated differently, which is intrinsically racist - but at least it's not as bad as saying the cast must be a certain percentage white/black/etc

Two of the four categories below must be complied with. No longer is the quality of the work important, it's the diversity that counts. It kind of does say that a certain percentage of the cast must be white/black etc.

1. A lead actor must belong to a marginalised population - Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, Black/African American, Indigenous/Native American/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern/North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander or another "underrepresented race or ethnicity."

Similarly, 30% or fewer "secondary and more minor roles" must be occupied by women, people in the LGBTQ+ community or a "racial or ethnic group," as well as those "with cognitive or physical disabilities, or who are deaf or hard of hearing."

2. This standard dictates that a number of behind-the-scenes professionals must come from such underrepresented populations as well.

At least two "creative leadership positions and department heads" must be filled by those belonging to underrepresented groups, including the "casting director, cinematographer, composer, costume designer, director, editor, hairstylist, makeup artist, producer, production designer, set decorator, sound, VFX supervisor and/or writer."

Additionally, at least six other crew positions must be filled by those belonging to underrepresented groups. Such "positions include but are not limited to first AD, gaffer, script supervisor" and more. Production assistants are excluded.

3. "The major studios/distributors are required to have substantive, ongoing paid apprenticeships/internships inclusive of underrepresented groups ..." the release explained.

Such positions must be available in several departments: Production/development, physical production, post-production, music, VFX, acquisitions, business affairs, distribution, marketing and publicity.
"Mini-major or independent studios/distributors" are required to have two such apprenticeships or internships in the "production/development, physical production, post-production, music, VFX, acquisitions, business affairs, distribution, marketing [or] publicity" departments.

4. Perhaps the most straightforward, but demanding, of the standards, "audience development" requires a studio or company to have "multiple in-house senior executives from" the outlined underrepresented groups.

timmyntc · 09-09-2020 3:48pm

Cordell wrote: »

I never said anything to suggest that it is.

Or this

That was a joke and hinted as such.

I never claimed that the structure of mathematics is relative or not well defined.

My only point is that some people don't know anything about other bases and assume that something like 2 + 2 = 10 is just completely wrong. That's it, no more to it.

2 + 2 = 10 is true in certain bases, but typically if you aren't using base10 you will specify the base in the equation. Either that or it's implicitly obvious what the base is due to the context.

It's still dishonest to say that 2 + 2 = 5 is true because what if I changed the bases of the numbers unbeknownst to everyone else.

Cordell · 09-09-2020 3:48pm

SlowMotion321 wrote: »

I guess you could say "It's all about the base, 'bout the base....."

If that is what they want to understand, then it's no treble.

cdeb · 09-09-2020 3:49pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Two of the four categories below must be complied with. No longer is the quality of the work important, it's the diversity that counts. It kind of does say that a certain percentage of the cast must be white/black etc.

OK, I'll take back my comment so (which was based on the least relevant of the four). That seems daft. And plain racist.

Creating divisions like this just reinforces the idea of differences rather than tries to bridge them, which is fundamentally unhelpful. (In my view)

SlowMotion321 · 09-09-2020 3:52pm

Cordell wrote: »

If that is what they want to understand, then it's no treble.

If it's in the privacy of your own home and no one gets hurt it's none of my business brother/sister/it/insert your own gender! That's none of my business, just remember the safe word!

Gregor Samsa · 09-09-2020 3:53pm

Strangely, Parasite would qualify under the new rules, despite being completely racially homogenous.

Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Comments

Wokeism of the day Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users