What the dick am I actually reading? Pool’s response seems apt, if lacking in “what the ever-loving fuck”, which is probably a good thing given the forum, so allow me - what the ever-loving fuck, SlackerInc? What actually the fuck? When you make even ITR Champion look good on race, you have fucked up.
Ahhh, I don’t have a problem with the hypothetical which seems to be built around the concept that Mississippi has black folk to spare and that moving them them (in appropriate numbers) could tip FL and GA blue, which isn’t going to happen in Mississippi any time soon. (The hypothetical also depends on the accurate observation that blacks typically vote D.)
I mean, sure it’s weird that he’d think that up, but as a hypothetical way of effecting political change moving from one state to another has been discussed here before, in a non-racial context, such as the call for “Calexodus”.
As I mentioned in the thread, libertarians tried to do this with New Hampshire.
The idea of people moving around to change politics is a common one (this is one reason the south is becoming more purple, people from outside the south are moving to big cities in VA, NC, GA & TX). And black voters are 90% democratic.
However, something similar did happen in Vermont albeit not on purpose. Both states were attractive to both liberals and libertarians because the existing population were indeed more libertarian live-and-let-live types than moralistic busybodies.
But to the point of the thread, it’s difficult to commit to uprooting yourself just for the sake of your one vote. So the new Vermonters came outside of any organized movement.
The idea is a common one. A little bit of thought shows that the idea is almost always ridiculous. The vast majority of people won’t move for political reasons — they need social or financial reasons. So you need monetary incentives. And to move the number of people needed to make a difference would take an enormous amount of money.
Political changes due to natural migration of people, as is happening in the south, is a different matter.
I apologize for reviving his thread about relocating black Mississippians when it was fading away. I should have kept just ignoring him.
I already considered him a putz.
The thing is, I myself had had, and kind of liked, the idea of relocating people into different districts to fight the effects of gerrymandering. It’s just that we have to admit it’s inefficient compared to its counters.
But going so far as to suggest taking African-Americans out of MS is creepy.
I don’t think that’s it at all. OF course, no one would uproot themselves for the sake of their one vote but to be part of 10,000 votes and making a difference, that is different. Take the racial element out of it and I might consider it depending on where I’d be moving to. Heck, I’m from Fl and I’d consider moving home if there was such an offer on the table. Plus, no state income tax…
Add in the racial element however and it becomes a really weird idea and assumes that people choose their party primarily by their race and I don’t believe that’s true at all.
I think of him as the poster who never shuts up about how high his IQ is, and how that somehow makes up for his lack of actual education. With him I see much less evidence of what I would consider to be very high IQ in his posting than I do among some posters who have never mentioned what their IQ is. I’m not saying he’s stupid, just nothing I’ve seen makes me think there is anything particularly exceptional about his reasoning capabilities.
Seriously. Firstly, he doesn’t get that such images could be faked incredibly easily, and thus couldn’t possibly be proof for anything other that one is feeble-minded enough to think that people might take these as proof of anything. And secondly, he really seems to think that trying to prove online to strangers that one is awesome is a sign of awesomeness.
I know I’m probably enabling him by continuing to point and laugh, but sometimes it can’t be helped!
Slackerinc is a terrible person because of the racist shit and the misogynistic shit, but it’s the way he talks about art that is just nails on a chalkboard to me. It’s never enough for him to like or dislike something: he has to make these claims about it’s empirical quality, as if he’s a perfectly objective Aesthetic Scientist who has the complete list of what is “good”. It’s never just not to his taste: it’s objectively bad. It’s honestly shocking that the gatekeeping experts–the editors, the producers, what have you–would have let this artist make this mistake (which is an extension of his overall bigoted paternalistic approach to women and minorities).
There is thisthread, where he goes on for pages about how Jemisin’s Broken Earth trilogy is badly written–and then goes off on how Connie Willis is even worse. This despite admitting he only read a couple pages of Jemisin and never clarifying if he’d actually read any Connie Willis. Not, “I don’t like it that kind of writing” but:
That’s right. After several people dug up pages of citations from literary scholars taking these authors seriously, it’s all people falling for the “emperor’s new clothes” because he knows, authoritatively, that these women can’t write, they are BAD writers, they needed a (implied, male) writing partner or editor to teach them the craft. All those awards and scholarly recognition is virtue signaling.
And his proof? Here’s a quote. You have to demonstrate exactly what makes this exact quote “good writing” or else you’re just an establishment stooge. You have to hold these 300 words up to the “good writing” paint chip and the “bad writing” paint chip and argue which it matches. He doesn’t have to make an argument: he can just see which one it matches. You have to prove to him that this writing matches what he considers “good writing” , or admit it’s bad writing.
I think the worst part is the condescending admission that there are a few “writerly sentences in there”, as if good writing must be evaluated on the sentence-by-sentence level, and as if modern writers must adhere to writing models long dead, the models handed down by the old masters–and any deviation from that is not deliberate aesthetic choice, it’s unskilled flailing.
Anyway, I was pretty infuriated by all that, but then he drops these gems in the thread about Into the Spiderverse
The terrible burden of “having to grade” it. He can “see an argument” for the other side, but ultimately, that’s wrong. He’s right: the animation style is bad. It could have been a great movie, but “they” messed up.
This isn’t as appalling as his behavior in that first thread, but it has the same tone: this smug sense that he just KNOWS what’s good, what’s right, and that other people are wrong: they don’t see the flaws that are so glaring to him, with his princess-pea level sensitivity to aesthetic lapses. What a burden!
Assumes existence in the absence of the least evidence. Probably closer to an Int 12. At best.
I’d rather put it at Con 17 - what he lacks in charm, discretion, or smarts, he tirelessly makes up with remarkable and unfailing stubbornness.
There are intelligent posters who are not especially well educated. SlackerInc is not one of them. He has not to date shown he is particularly intelligent, intellectually honest, or especially intellectually curious. Actually, he often goes out of his way to show he doesn’t really understand his own cites, arguments, or the counter-arguments from other posters. But he does like to repeatedly bludgeon the same arguments again and again despite any obvious counter-evidence or flaws in reasoning.
He’s so terribly poor at arguing his racist bullshit in particular, it has actually changed my mind on male circumcision (no joke, actually for real, changed my mind). If he’s so adamantly opposed to it and given his history of being absolutely wrong on his other pet causes and his atrociously poor reading comprehension and ability to evaluate evidence, male circumcision is probably a good thing.
He’s examined his heart and he’s sure he’s not a sick puppy. He knows this because he just thinks whole groups are statistically unlikely to be capable of achievement, but is sure he doesn’t judge individuals. And he thinks black people are amazing musicians, so he’s not racist.
He honestly thinks every discussion of aesthetics is an ARGUMENT, a thing to be won or lost, where you score points by bringing up sentences and passages in isolation and point things out. Then you tally up your points and see who wins. I am sure he always “wins” these sorts of arguments in real life, not realizing no one else wants to participate in a Socratic Dialogue where they have to defend the legitimacy of their aesthetic reactions. He sees submission when he’s being humored, and has come to think of himself as wise in the ways of these things.