#fractal wrongness

[lanfykins]

As an exercise to the reader, try and figure out quite how much is wrong with this AI overview...

[kyliafanfiction]

FRACTAL WRONGNESS

[kyliafanfiction]

That’s.... that’s not how anything works.

[theceilingunlimited]

Above left: the president-elect of the United States of America. Above right: Scott Lemieux, right now, artist’s rendering. Amazingly, an anti-democratic mechanism intended to overrepresent the interests of slaveholders has not prevented a white nationalist authoritarian who lost the election by the standard that prevails in pretty much every democratic jurisdiction in the world from …

Scott, and LGAM, stop talking. Please stop talking. With every post, you prove yourselves to be GIANT FUCKING ANTI-FREEDOM, ANTI-RIGHTS RETARDS.

[pervocracy]

Here’s what it sounds like to me when people go off about “There’s only two genders and it’s determined at birth, that’s not my opinion, it’s science!  You can’t fight science!”:

-

There’s only two names and they’re determined at birth.  The proof for this is simple: there’s only two eye colors, blue and brown.  Therefore, there’s only two names.  Having a third name, when there isn’t a third eye color, is clearly just science-denial and attention-seeking.

Those two names, of course, are Ricky and Natasha.  That’s just plain science!  You’re either named Ricky, or you’re named Natasha.  That’s all there is.  I have brown eyes, so I’m Ricky, as nature intended.

Anyway, you can hardly expect me to remember a third name, or to accept that someone has a name I wouldn’t know just by looking at them.  (I need not mention that sunglasses and colored contacts are morally wrong, because Science.)

So which are you really, Ricky or Natasha?

-

The premise is wrong, but even if it wasn’t, the conclusion would still be from a different planet than the premise.

[theceilingunlimited]

The third and final instalment of my critique of Locke’s theory of appropriation/expropriation is up at Jacobin. I turn my attention from Locke to Jefferson, Locke’s most important foll…

Neither Locke nor epigones such as Nozick and Rothbard can provide a coherent theory of just appropriation of property.

Yes they can. You, John "Jackasshole" Quiggin cannot provide a coherent argument against them. Jackoff.

[biologyweeps]

I accept no responsibility for the damage to your teeth, hair and general well-being that comes of seeing this post.

Me, right now:

I don’t even know where to start

All of this is bullshit, every last bit I don’t even. 

[theceilingunlimited]

I've been trying to publish this post for 5 months. It's been sitting in my queue, and I've been too worried about fallout to publish it, despite the support of friends familiar with the situation....

"Developer".