Author Topic: Leftists against progressivism  (Read 2269 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7385
    • View Profile
Re: Leftists against progressivism
« on: September 13, 2020, 12:12:17 am »

False Left AI fail:

Some of these AI systems, developed to measure the "toxicity" of text-based content, make use of natural language processing and sentiment assessment to detect harmful text.
The AI measures the perceived level of “toxicity” of text-based content. Perspec­tive defines "toxic" as "a rude, disrespectful, or unreason­able comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion.” Accordingly, the AI model was trained by asking people to rate internet comments on a scale from "very healthy" to "very toxic." The level of perceived toxicity indicates the likelihood that a specific comment will be considered toxic.

We used Perspective’s API to compare the perceived levels of toxicity of well-known drag queens and far-right political figures. The study compared the Twitter accounts of all the former participants of RuPaul's Drag Race with those of far-right leaders such as David Duke, Richard Spencer, Stefan Molyneux, and Faith Goldy. Additionally, we included prom­inent non-LGBTQ Twitter users, including Donald Trump and Michelle Obama. We analyzed over 114,000 tweets posted in English with Perspective’s most recent version.

Our results indicate that a significant number of drag queen Twitter accounts were calculated to have higher perceived levels of toxicity than white nationalist leaders. On average, the toxicity levels of the drag queens’ accounts ranged from 16.68 percent to 37.81 percent, while the white nationalists’ averages spanned from 21.30 percent to 28.87 percent. The toxicity level of President Trump’s Twitter account was 21.84 percent.

Rudeness and disrespectfulness towards evil is heroic, not toxic. It is politeness and respectfulness towards evil which is toxic. But the AI cannot grasp this because the AI only sees the rudeness, not the target of the rudeness (and hence whether or not the target deserves the rudeness). In order for the AI to be successful, it would first have to learn to distinguish between punching up (what True Leftists do) and punching down (what rightists do).

Drag queens can be sharp-tongued. From “reads”—a specific form of insult that acerbically exposes someone’s flaws—to harsh jokes and comebacks, drag queens often reclaim words traditionally used as slurs to build a distinctive communication style.
"I AM BLACK. I AM GAY. I AM A MAN. I AM A DRAG QUEEN. If those are not enough for you...kindly, **** OFF!!!"

Level of toxicity: 95.98 percent

And yet no one here would find this objectionable in the slightest, because we know whatever rudeness contained is directed not towards us, but directed only towards those who inside their own minds already failed to see him as an individual first, and hence only towards those who deserve to be treated rudely. On the other hand:

Though the ideas promoted by white nationalist tweets may target vulnerable groups, Perspective's AI often categorized them as much less toxic than the drag queens’ tweets:
"The three major races have different brain volumes and different average IQs."

Level of toxicity: 21.7 percent

And yet everyone here wants Molyneux's fingers cut off slice by slice as punishment for typing such a tweet, because he is the one proactively encouraging his readers to not treat people as individuals.

Honestly, I wonder what "level of toxicity" the following (superlatively heroic) line would get from the AI:

"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." - Jesus


This is mostly about sports, but interesting non-the-less.

Increasingly, what we do outside is less about enjoying the activity itself as an intrinsic good, and more about planning ways to go bigger, faster, and farther, often for our selfie-stick mounted cameras. And so it went that once healthy outdoor pursuits devolved into suicide clubs.

Stop the Progression Already


I think it's an understanding from many people that progressivism means challenging traditionalism by accepting better changes.


"challenging traditionalism"

Then why not simply call it anti-traditionalism?

A problem with anti-traditionalism calling itself "progressivism" is that it implicitly discourages association by anti-traditionalists with the ancient world as a whole (which is casually dismissed as "ignorant", "savage", etc.), even though the ancient world includes many things besides tradition. This leaves the ancient world to be claimed uncontested by traditionalists, and subsequently portrayed as being solely traditional, thereby monopolizing nostalgia for ancient times to serve traditionalism alone. The point of regressivism is to block traditionalists from such monopolization (and hence their portrayal of anti-traditionalism as a solely modern attitude) by raising awareness that anti-tradition is no less part of the past than is tradition, thereby actively encouraging anti-traditionalists to look to the ancient world for inspiration.

"accepting better changes"

Better by what standards?


False leftist technocracy:


France was historically a main crucible of the False Left, so the following shift is encouraging:

France’s Left Is Finally Fighting Islamophobia
The intensity of Islamophobic racism and its centrality to the ideology of the French ruling class make it an urgent priority for left-wing political forces. But the French left, strongly committed to France’s secularist tradition, has historically not been up to the task.

Just after the November 2015 attacks, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, 2017 presidential candidate and popular figurehead of the left-nationalist La France Insoumise party, said that he disputed the very term “Islamophobia.” Mélenchon, who has consistently called for the prohibition of public displays of religion like Muslim street prayers, gave an explanation widespread across the political spectrum: “For my part,” he said, “I defend the idea that we have the right not to like Islam, we have the right not to like the Catholic religion, and that is one of our freedoms.”

In fact, Mélenchon was attacking a straw man here. Left-wing groups fighting Islamophobia have never wanted to stifle critique of religion as such: Mélenchon’s declaration served only to discredit the campaign against anti-Muslim racism. It was a sign of how things have changed for the better that, at the party’s summer school this August, a similar statement by a different speaker caused a furor.

Sunday’s march, with its demand to put an end to discrimination, hate speech, and “liberticidal” laws directed against Muslim people, may be the start of a major realignment. Initiated by Madjid Messaoudene, a local politician in the Saint-Denis suburb north of Paris, the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), the CCIF, and activist groups fighting racist police violence, among others, the march was endorsed by the largest coalition of left-wing individuals and organizations ever assembled against Islamophobia.
The evolution in attitudes toward Islamophobia was particularly clear in Mélenchon. While some members of his own party, initially supportive of the march, hedged and backtracked, Mélenchon maintained his strong support, regardless of his reservations about the term “Islamophobia.” He noted that no concrete alternative was being offered by the march’s opponents, and he criticized the fact that “on the basis of a disagreement about a word, people are managing to refuse Muslims the right to be defended by people who aren’t Muslim and who want to put an end to the current atmosphere against them.”

Even the electorally decimated Socialist Party, whose refusal to participate on Sunday was read by some organizers as an attempt to sabotage the march, may have been somewhat influenced. The fact that the most venomously Islamophobic Socialists, like former prime minister Manuel Valls, are no longer in the party (many having gone over to Macron’s La République En Marche! movement) has played a role here. Seeking to give the impression that they are committed to fighting racism, the PS says it will call for a different demonstration against anti-Muslim hatred in the coming weeks. How serious it is remains to be seen.


I'm not a completely decided Kaczynskiite, but I think he has some good points that we can all agree on, so I wanna shoot this out there to see what you guys think. From what I can summarize, his keypoints against technology include:

[1]: Technological growth enables economic and mental enslavement on scales never before seen (EG: environmental devastation, population explosion, compulsory education).

[2]: There are two kinds of technology; smallscale technology ~ that is, tech that doesn't require an entire industrialcomplex to produce it, such as wooden longhouses and chairs ~ and organizational technology, which does require entire an industrialcomplex to produce (such as computers and cars). The marked difference between these two forms of technology is that, while organizational technology can do wonders, it tends to make life overlydependent on it, thus making people vulnerable to enslavement and that it is therefore bad.

[3]: Technological civilization will inevitably fall due to its precarious "lastminute" and complex nature.

[4]: People who advocate that marginalized people in society can and are capable, and should be, outstanding members of technological society aren't actually helping them, because all they're doing is encouraging them to be goodslaves to society.

In our own words, this is when we speak of people who say "blacks" should become scientists, doctors, politicians, Et cetera aren't actually helping them spiritually, because all they're really doing is trying to get them to become more "white"/Western imo.


The following video shows why progressives will never be leftists:

Yeah. Go ahead and keep making excuses for Trump supporters and blame “de industrialization”. No wonder we are not progressives; we are against industrialization itself!

This illustrates the divide between True Leftists and False Leftists as manifest presently: False Leftists are the ones who will make excuses for Trump supporters at every corner, while True Leftists are the ones who will unrelentingly criticize Trump supporters for their racism.

Don't just take my word for it; here is an article where the author encapsulates this perfectly:

The truth is, that Bernie Sanders often sidesteps institutional racism, instead, casting racial disparities as consequences of capitalism and corporate greed. There are instances, including a recent interview with the New York Times editorial board, when it seems as if Sanders is unable to say the words “white supremacy” or “racism.”

If this division can be exacerbated, we can once and for all distinguish the True Left from the False Left.


Yang also makes excuses for Trump supporters, believing that racism is a symptom of what he calls "a mindset of scarcity" and hence that inculcating "a mindset of abundance" is the solution. I would say instead that abundance might* temporarily distract racists from acting on their racism, whereas scarcity will drive them to immediately act on it, but internally they still had to be racist in the first place for any of the above to apply at all. Anti-racists do not become racists from scarcity. On the contrary, anti-racists experiencing scarcity feel even more connected to those afflicted by even worse scarcity (e.g. refugees).

(* I say "might" because the colonial era was an era of unprecedented abundance for the colonial powers. Did that make them any less racist?)

From this angle, progressivism is basically a proposal to saturate society in so much abundance that the differences between superior people and inferior people become as close to indistinguishable as possible. Regressivism, on the other hand, views scarcity as a good opportunity to see more clearly who is superior and who is inferior, and hence to permanently remove the inferior from society.


The most annoying thing is when they call Trumpism “populism”, simply because he is popular. The correct term for this phenomenon would be “popularism”, but illiterate journos don’t care...

And you are correct that the effect of economic abundance on racism is negligible, as many Trump supporters are from wealthy backgrounds! For example, in the South, many Trump supporters were formerly Obama supporters from affluent suburbs who merely supported Obama to counter the accusation that they were racist. But given that they themselves are descendants of segregationists, it was only a matter of time before they began to show their true colors.