@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

That's very flattering, but every time I looked into privacy-preserving ways of transferring money, it turned out to be a massive hassle, possibly bordering on impossibility. Personally, for my bets I prefer agreeing to donate to a charity of each person's choice, and taking the counterparty at their word (+ maybe a screenshot, though they're so easy to fake, it's effectively the same thing).

That is not true. I think I made a strong argument, but I also acknowledge:

I would like to believe that this clarification settles things, but I am also not naïve. If your epistemic filter is tuned to maximum paranoia, then the absence of evidence is merely further evidence of a cover-up. For everyone else, the police statement, local skepticism, and sociological context should nudge your priors at least a little.

In other words, as a Bayesian, my opinion is that you should at the very least be slightly swayed by the argument. That is not the same as thinking that anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable. There are actual people (living breathing humans) who are immune to any argument, probably including divine intervention. My scorn is largely reserved for them.

Well, maybe I took it all a bit too personally, but even with your explanation it kinda feels like you're saying that not moving your priors based on the things you mentioned is unreasonable. I happened to find the arguments you brought up unpersuasive, so their effect on my priors was mostly zilch (maybe witch the exception of the police originally charging the girl), and I think that's perfectly justifiable.

They're not. You can look at the evolution of someone like Noah Smith to see an example. He went from pretty woke in his Bloomberg days to heavily criticizing wokeness while still being left-leaning today

How does this prove that centrist Democrats aren't woke, and won't come back to promoting wokeness the moment they secure their power again?

Back in 2021 some Dems still didn't have antibodies to the woke mindvirus which is part of why Biden picked some of them.

They already had lots back in 2016. They just decided to purge them. Because they are woke.

That, and "staffers" are kind of their own unique breed that have been radicalized by the internet on both sides. The Right has an increasing problem with its own staffers being groypers these days.

Did you just link to an article about a group of staffers for being mildly edgy, and said that explains centrist Democrats somehow weren't in power because of their staffers?

There very clearly is. The woke faction still exists certainly, but it's much less powerful than in its heyday.

There isn't. They lost power to Republicans, not some faction of anti-woke Democrats. Some of them realized they should keep quiet to not lose elections, but there's no evidence that the Democrats are any less woke than they use to be.