Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

Last week’s thread

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this - this one was a bit late, I got distracted)

  • swlabr@awful.systemsEnglish
    5·
    9 hours ago

    Wow, that starts bad and gets worse.

    It starts with this quote, which is absolutely fine:

    But others said the admissions exam and additional application requirements are inherently unfair to students of color who face socioeconomic disadvantages. Elaine Waldman, whose daughter is enrolled in Reed’s IHP, said the test is “elitist and exclusionary,” and hoped dropping it would improve the diversity of the program.

    Now for the expert analysis:

    Recognizing gifted students is inherently discriminatory.

    Yes! This is true, following from the quote, as long as the thing that is “inherently” discriminated for is socioeconomic background. Of course, Animats immediately makes it about race.

    [insert common race science stats here] There are other numbers from other sources, but they all rank in that order. There’s a huge amount of denial about this. There are more articles trying to explain this away than ones that report the results.

    AKA I disagree with the analysis and consensus that all this IQ stuff is socioeconomic rather than genetic.

    (Average US Black IQ has been rising over the last few decades, but the US definition of “Black” includes mixed race. That may be a consequence of intermarriage producing more brown people, causing reversion to the mean. IQ vs 23 and Me data would be interesting. Does anyone collect that?)

    Jesus fucking christ.

    Gladwell’s new book, “The Revenge of The Tipping Point” goes into this at length. The Ivy League is struggling to avoid becoming majority-Asian. Caltech, which has no legacy admissions, is majority-Asian. So is UC Berkeley.[3]

    Nobody tell this guy that Gladwell is black.

    Of course, this may become less significant once AI gets smarter and human intelligence becomes less necessary in bulk. Hiring criteria for railroads and manufacturing up to WWII favored physically robust men with moderate intelligence. Until technology really got rolling, the demand for smart people was lower than their prevalence in the population.

    I guarantee that in the not happening future where AI is smarter than humans, chuds like this guy will still be racist.

    We may be headed back in that direction. Consider Uber, Doordash, Amazon, and fast food. Machines think and plan, most humans carry out the orders of the machines. A small number of humans direct.

    🙄🙄🙄