>It was later reported that the manuscript included plagiarized sections from Chapter 12 of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf (My Struggle), in which Hitler describes why the Nazi Party is needed and what it requires of its members. The authors replaced Hitler's references to "National Socialism" with "feminism" and "Jews" with "privilege".
Isn't this a pretty good example of how crude the hoax was? Of course some things that Hitler said won't be awful if you literally change the key words in the sentences. Imagine if I played this trick the other way round. I take something innocuous that a politician has said and replace random words or phrases with 'National Socialism' and 'Jews'. Suddenly what they're saying seems really controversial! And this shows...what?
> Imagine if I played this trick the other way round. I take something innocuous that a politician has said and replace random words or phrases with 'National Socialism' and 'Jews'. Suddenly what they're saying seems really controversial
I am not sure this is obvious or even true. Can you provide one example? "Gas all the <X>"...what? capitalists? murderers? rapists? pedophiles? It doesn't even make sense for them, what else is there?
inb4, no you don't want to gas these people, you want to fix them if possible or jail them otherwise.
“We must fight against the influence of special interests in American politics.”
“We must fight against the influence of Jews in American politics.”
You may or may not agree with the first statement, but it’s hardly in the same category as the second (which is deplorable). It seems to me trivially easy to construct many more such examples.
The hoax paper replaced references to Jews with references to privilege. It’s hardly surprising that rants against an abstract concept are less offensive than anti-Semitic rants.
> “We must fight against the influence of special interests in American politics.”
> “We must fight against the influence of Jews in American politics.”
To be fair, some people do use the former language to mean the special interests of "Jews." No all, but dog whistling does exist and dog whistling is explicitly about covert language. I don't think the special interest groups reference is a great example because it is a common phrase that is used to mean a lot of different things and isn't uncommon in various groups using covert language.
It's a phrase that pretty much every major American politician has used. Of course there are dog whistlers and conspiracy theorists, but I think the less problematic usages predominate. Not that the phrase really means anything as far as I can tell, but that's a separate issue.
I do see what you mean though. There's something inherently gross about juxtaposing two sentences like that. I'm not doing it to suggest any equivalence between them. The point is exactly the opposite (and I would have thought an uncontroversial one): that switching out the major vocabulary items in a sentence can take it from being innocuous to offensive or vice versa.
> Not that the phrase really means anything as far as I can tell, but that's a separate issue.
Actually I think that's explicitly the issue and a main part of my point. In fact, dog whistling or other type of coded language typically depend on ambiguous language. It's literally because language works like an autoencoder. There's what you have in your head that's encoded into what you say and then decoded. The coded language comes through a learned/tuned decoding.
My point is that such phrasing isn't inherently innocuous. Vague language is always inherently dubious. The juxtaposition just makes it more obvious in this case, but it's always true. It may not always be dog whistling but in the least dubious case it lets people fill in whatever they want. That's why I'm saying it isn't a good example.
Hmm. I think it's a fine example because 'special interests' is very rarely used as a dogwhistle for 'Jews'. Can you even point to an example where it is?
I'm not sure why you would be so caught up on "Jews" specifically when there are plenty of other targets that can be used. But yes, that term has been used to refer to Jews the same way one might say "Hollywood types" or "Bankers." I can't think of a specific example, but I think that's a bit high of a bar as I don't have an eidetic memory and it's not like I've been keeping a log of every time some mentions special interest group. Like most people I only remember the broad concepts and general notions. If you're aware of a way to easily Google or search this information, I'd be quite interested to know, because that's a very useful task. In the mean time, I'm sure you could find some if you dug around more around the Ukraine war, with both US right wing and Russian news platforms being the most likely place to find these. There's a lot of anti-semetic conspiracies revolving around Ukraine (with it even being the Russian's main initial propaganda) so that's why I suggest looking there.
Well, we disagree over the usage of 'special interests', and as you say, it's difficult to gather objective data to support or refute either view. It's obviously a vague phrase that could be (and occasionally has been) used to dogwhistle many things, but that doesn't mean that a sentence attacking "special interests" is inherently as offensive as a sentence attacking a specific ethnic or religious group. That is the only point I'm making here, which I suspect you don't even disagree with. Even in the case of a dogwhistle, the whole point of a dogwhistle is that it is less immediately and unambiguously offensive than a straightforward statement of a prejudiced viewpoint.
By the way I'm not 'caught up' on 'Jews'. It's just that 'Jews' is one of the words that the authors of the hoax article replaced.
Do you happen to have the passage in question at hand? Mein Kampf is a fairly long book, and it seems likely to me that there are passages of it which – with key words changed! – would not express anything particularly awful. But it is hard to judge without knowing what the modified passage actually said.
Edit: What the hoaxers actually say suggests that the passages were altered quite substantially: "The last two thirds of this paper is based upon a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original.". And you can read the paper here: https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/#solidarity
Sorry, that was a good faith mistake on my part, and I edited it out before you made this comment. I got confused because the link also states (correctly) that it was rejected from Feminist Theory.
Twice in two comments foldr quoted from a source. Both of those quotes are literally right next to another sentence in the source which is exactly the opposite of what foldr asserted.
The Affila wikipedia page section titled “Grievance studies affair” is four sentences long. The sentence right before foldrs quote, which is the first in the section is this.
>In October 2018, it was revealed that the journal had accepted for publication a hoax article entitled "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism."
The New Discourses link does say the paper was rejected from a specific journal in the first footnote which is . The second footnote says the article was accepted. Both footnotes quoted here:
> Peer reviewed and rejected by Feminist Theory
> Accepted by Affilia , August 21, 2018
At this point I am no longer sorry for not assuming good faith from someone arguing that a reformulation of kompf could be “not that bad”.
If I was intentionally lying, it seems unlikely that I’d have chosen to link to a page which clearly shows that my statement was false. It was just a careless mistake that I corrected as soon as I noticed it. Relax. I haven’t personally attacked you in this discussion. You’re not making your own point any clearer here by harping on this.
I don’t accept the characterization of being thorough as harping, or that anyone would need to be unrelaxed for that. Is that ironic with me being told to assume good faith?
Rules of thumb by definition don't 'scale' (is this the right word?): they're true on the whole most of the time.
The point of 'assume good faith' is that it's very easy to convince yourself that semi-anonymous people on the internet are liars. Most of the time they're not. It's very easy to inadvertently make factual errors. Published books that have been carefully reviewed are full of them. What chance do random morons ranting on the internet stand?
According to Washington Post and Slate, both being rather progressive, SAT prep might improve scores 10-20 points on average, with greater effect on the math section. There is a paper on the ACT website suggesting 30-60 points.
Downward adjustments for high performing demographics can be double that.
A cup of coffee would probably see similar or better improvements than test prep.
Khan Academy claims that doing their test prep is associated with a 115-point increase. Fortunately, their test prep is free, and is usable by anyone with access to a computer/phone/library.
I don't know about the SAT prep specifically, but much of their content is also downloadable for offline use, which is pretty cool.
Among admits, there are small differences in actual test scores especially among whites and Asians.[1] Also, there are racial gaps among actually using SAT prep.[2] Whites may actually be the least likely to use test prep courses depending on which source you look at.[3] I guess if you are applying to Harvard, test prep could actually be pretty significant.
When Harvard makes it decisions, test prep could actually be a major factor in admission there since scores are so close(assuming the numbers you gave). Especially since they try to reach out to people in different regions of the US.
The Slate article says the points effect is modest but also that a few points make a big difference to college admissions at the selective schools.
I also question how the controlling is done. The control group does better seemingly from doing the test more. You'd think that's one of the things that shouldn't be controlled for. After all isn't it part of test prep?
It wasn't, actually. I made that comment before I read the complaint. The statutory basis of their complaint is that Facebook constitutes some specie of nuisance, hence my later comment that even if we took their factual assertions at face value the charge asserted should be void for vagueness.
Well, there are reasons. If your archive format handles compression, it can be designed in such a way that you can seek and extract only parts of the archive. If the archive format doesn't handle compression, you're dependent on reading through the archive sequentially from start to finish.
That's not to say tar is wrong to not have native compression, it's just one reason why it's not crazy for archive formats to natively support compression.
I’m semi-sure that this is possible with .tar.gz files already. I’ve used vim to view a text file within a few different rather large archives without noticing the machine choke up on extracting several gigs before showing content. Certainly nothing was written to disk in those cases.
.tar.gz files can only be read sequentially, but there are optimizations in place on common tools that make this surprisingly fast as long as there's enough memory available to essentially mmap the decompressed form. The problem is bigger with archives in the tens of GB (actually pretty common for tarballs since it's popular as a lowest-common-denominator backup format) or resource-constrained systems where the swapping becomes untenable.
The accounts aren’t but the orgs typically are and I think that passes muster. Ultimately they just don’t want people astroturfing or otherwise deceptively maintaining multiple accounts on behalf of paying customers.
