Merged Arday life and death

[theprestige]

Trump is one of the few who don't understand that distinction. A lot of people have indeed been talking about (a), partly because (a) actually happened, whereas Trump is one of the few who believes (b), and is still trying to get courts to agree with him.

I get it now. Not only is it totally irrelevant to this thread, but you've also gone about discussing it in the stupidest way possible.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not relevant to this thread.

Except as context.

For what? Your irrelevant tangent that you premised on the lie that smartcooky was talking about law enforcement?

For the highly relevant fact that a lot of rich fools get admitted to prestigious universities and build careers based on lies and fraud.

Happens all the time, and everyone who's been paying any attention at all is aware of some rather famous examples of it.

Arday's case is unusual because he didn't come from a rich family and wasn't admitted to an especially prestigious university. But he was promoted by those who believed his lies and ignored rather obvious signs of fraud, and that's very much in line with the more famous examples you'd prefer we not mention.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the highly relevant fact that a lot of rich fools get admitted to prestigious universities and build careers based on lies and fraud.

That has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with law enforcement investigations.

Arday's case is unusual because he didn't come from a rich family and wasn't admitted to an especially prestigious university.

Do you honestly think that's the only thing unusual about Arday's case?

Damn, even I didn't think academia is in that bad a shape. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For the highly relevant fact that a lot of rich fools get admitted to prestigious universities and build careers based on lies and fraud.

That has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with law enforcement investigations.

Fraud often ends up having a lot to do with law enforcement investigations. I could name specific examples in which such investigations led to criminal convictions. (Edited to correct the first link.)

Do you honestly think that's the only thing unusual about Arday's case?

No. If you search the archives of this thread, you will discover that, before today's offhand remark that you decided to amplify into this ongoing discussion of the more general phenomenon of fools, liars, and frauds, most of what I've had to say concerned Arday's claim to have run 30 marathons in 35 days. Most fools, liars, and frauds don't run and don't pretend to run marathons.

Although some have achieved notoriety for golfing and lying about the tournaments they say they've won. So Arday's case is hardly unique even in that respect.

 

[ahhell]

How did Trump get pulled into this thread?

 

[Rolfe]

Like this.

I've even heard there's this really dumb white guy who got an economics science degree from an Ivy League University once. How did that happen?

I think the entire derail needs throwing in AAH.

 

[Rolfe]

This is just a gallop through Arday's extensive catalogue of fairy-tales, but the question is relevant. Where is the racism in this saga, and who introduced it?

 

[smartcooky]

Yesterday, in response to someone who suspects "the police will not investigate" Arday, but only because Arday died before he could be investigated, @smartcooky wrote "I agree."
.

Oh please!! Stop being so stupidly obtuse. I said I agree TO THE PART I HIGHLIGHTED.

 

[d4m10n]

What Trump has in common with Arday is that elite institutions failed them both by granting special favor regardless of merit.

*Exception: Mark Burnett^WP discovered genuine talent, it's too bad he only tapped one of these two men for stardom.

 

[smartcooky]

Trump is one of the few who don't understand that distinction. A lot of people have indeed been talking about (a), partly because (a) actually happened, whereas Trump is one of the few who believes (b), and is still trying to get courts to agree with him.


We should all be skeptical of any institutes and universities that may have issued degrees to people such as myself, you, or @Ziggurat.

We should be skeptical even of universities that issued a degree to Arday, and of all who were overly impressed by Arday's degree(s).

For the record.
1. I never said or implied, nor do I think that Arday ought to be, or have been investigated by law enforcement.

2. When I told @a_unique_person to investigate the Fat Orange Turd, I meant for him to investigate, not law enforcement. (Note the hilite)

You come breezing in here, not understanding the topic, clearly not having read the thread, and start lying about what people have posted, quoting them out of context and going on political tirades.

Take your bull-◊◊◊◊ to the Trump thread. Your political rantings are off topic here

 

[smartcooky]

This is just a gallop through Arday's extensive catalogue of fairy-tales, but the question is relevant. Where is the racism in this saga, and who introduced it?

His loony left-wing defenders did that when they played the race card..

 

[smartcooky]

How did Trump get pulled into this thread?

Posters with their Hobby Horse.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Regarding checks for plagiarised theses as part of a recruitment process, AI systems do this now in staggeringly quick times, and Turnitin has been operating since 2000. There really is no excuse for not checking PHD theses for prospective employees of universities.

To some degree, sure. But it also seems like it would be out of scope for hiring to go check everyone's prior publications for plagiarism. One would expect that each publisher (or thesis committee or similar) would check each piece prior to accepting them. It seems reasonable that Cambridge would assume that all prior reviewers had done their due diligence.

The counter to that is when evidence is brought to Cambridge after the hiring, suggesting plagiarism of a meaningful or material amount, then the school should do an independent check. It's their reputation on the line, and it will always be better for the school to act quickly and efficiently to remove teachers and professors who don't demonstrate the values expected of them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think that's mostly in the USA, and a result of the ultra-polarised two party system. If one of them is pro-X, the other HAS to be anti-X. I swear that my impression from over here is that if one party wanted to outlaw kicks to the crotch, the other would feel a need to make them mandatory.

If we're not already there, we're perilously close.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I've even heard there's this really dumb white guy who got an economics science degree from an Ivy League University once. How did that happen?

I'm flabbergasted, though I probably shouldn't be, by the response this one simple little joke triggered in this thread. Pages and pages of posts from people who seem genuinely upset by this little jab at their Dear Leader. And before you accuse me of being off-topic, this is exactly the kind of pearl-clutching defensiveness they accuse 'woke' people and institutions of wrt to Arday. Has this guy made himself guilty of fraud and lies? Doesn't matter, defend and excuse him at all costs.

It's like the 'DEI hire' thing I referred to earlier, where the (far) right is way more obsessed with superficial traits like gender, race, and sexual orientation than the moderates and leftists will ever be.

Every accusation. Every time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And "IQ deniers", "heritability deniers", "sex difference deniers". None of these seem to be high on the leftist political agenda. The poster who added this text to the image must have really been wrangling his or her brain to come up with something for the left side.

Sex difference is definitely a thing the US left is in denial about. The divide on differences in physical ability and performance on the basis of sex, as well as the difference in offending rates for violent and sexual offenses on the basis of sex is something that is frequently hand-waved away or argued that it's "inconclusive" or "uncertain" or "disputed" in some fashion or other. A solid chunk of US democrats (not just politicians but supporters) can't even tell you what the real difference is between males and females.

It's kind of a thing.

For the other two, well, I dunno what to tell you. There's fairly good supporting evidence that some portion of intelligence, behavior, and skills are heritable. Some is also social, but the predisposition is pretty well supported as heritable. And whether any of us like it or not, there are differences in mean IQ and standard deviation apparent and measurable across almost any classification system you pick... including race.

In most cases, those differences aren't material, even if they're statistically significant. As a completely made up example because I don't feel like trying to do research or to come up with something more complex... If Cohort A has a mean of 10, and Cohort B has a mean of 12, that might be statistically significant - the math might say there's a real difference between those. But if the range available is 0 to 21, they're not materially different. They're close enough to not be meaningful in reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes equality is the same as saying a billionaire should pay the same tax as a pauper.
Shifting taxation from being income based to expenditure based is moving from equity to equality, Millionaires tend to spend a lower proportion of their income on goods and save and invest a greater proportion than poor people, So whilst taxation may become more equal with the rich man paying less tax but still more than the poorman, it becomes less equitable with the poor man paying a greater proportion of his income than the rich man.

Not everyone thinks equality trumps equity.

Equity is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" and it completely undermines the concepts of equal opportunity, agency, and merit. In some few cases, that might be a reasonable approach. In a whole lot of cases, it's not reasonable at all.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'm flabbergasted, though I probably shouldn't be, by the response this one simple little joke triggered in this thread. Pages and pages of posts from people who seem genuinely upset by this little jab at their Dear Leader. And before you accuse me of being off-topic, this is exactly the kind of pearl-clutching defensiveness they accuse 'woke' people and institutions of wrt to Arday. Has this guy made himself guilty of fraud and lies? Doesn't matter, defend and excuse him at all costs.

It's like the 'DEI hire' thing I referred to earlier, where the (far) right is way more obsessed with superficial traits like gender, race, and sexual orientation than the moderates and leftists will ever be.

Every accusation. Every time.

So, whataboutism instead of addressing anything of substance? Well, colour me impressed. I never would have guessed

 

[Emily's Cat]

@Planigale
Sales tax and the lottery are already a tax on poor people to make up for that.

But we're not talking about taxes anyway. The whole thrust of "equity" is that if you think some ethnic group historically had less chances (generational wealth, past discrimination, yadda yadda) then they should get more employment and education chances, at the expense of the group you think was favoured in those ways.

If you accept that logic as valid, then LITERALLY antisemitism in '30s Germany makes complete sense. They believed that one ethnic group (the Jews) were historically advantaged, and that the other Germans were disadvantaged. (Generational wealth, ethnic discrimination for high paying jobs, yadda yadda.) Then discriminating against the Jews based on that belief starts to make a whole lot of sense.

I mean, I obviously don't subscribe to nazi ideology, but just saying: It's the EXACT same logic. Hence why I don't subscribe to "equity" either.

I'd love to see equity put in place for grades. You know, some kids get a 4.0, and others get a 2.0... we should take some of the GPA from those with 4.0s, because obviously they have unearned privileges that let them get those grades. We should give some of the GPA to those unfortunates who have been oppressed and discriminated against, thus preventing them from getting their fair share of grades.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can’t you at least concede that Cambridge lacked due diligence in its recruitment process? I do have a background in executive recruitment. It is (or should be) a long and costly process. The Cambridge selection committee failed.

I think the committee failed, but not because of the plagiarism. I think they failed because it's clear that Arday's extraordinary non-academic background influenced their choice to hire them... and someone should have verified that their claims of multiple unusual things all happening to one person were at least real. They failed to employ some basic skepticism, and acted with complete credulity.