Jiro
8mo ago
It's not trivial, but it also isn't an automatic win. "Racism is evil, so now that we've established that Jefferson is racist, you'd better not mention him in a positive context ever again unless my side approves of it" is not legitimate. And that's what "Jefferson is racist" usually means.
Lab-grown meat strikes me as like deciding that it's evil to draw pictures of Mohammed, but if you use a special light refraction method, you can have something that looks sort of like Mohammed but doesn't count as a picture for religious purposes, so Muslims lobby for use of this method and dozens of scientists spend millions of dollars figuring out how to get people to accept this method instead of normal photography.
Jiro
1mo ago
The people looking up the holocaust and related stuff obviously clicked on it.
Because it was on top of Google. You are trying to justify putting it on top of Google by saying that people clicked on it, but people only clicked on it because it was on top of Google. That's circular reasoning.
It's not false. It's true.
Oh come on now. Holocaust deniers really are a tiny, tiny, minority. Conservatives aren't.
You decide truth for the holocaust and ban it.
No, the world does. Holocaust deniers are a tiny minority, and they state false things.
Progressives decide truth for 'conservatives' and ban it.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should pay no attention to truth because someone might think false things are true?
Jiro
2mo ago
You say "even Trump" as though that makes the idea stronger when it actually makes it weaker. Women blaming problems on feminism is something of note because more than one woman does it and more than one member of society supports them doing it. The fact that Trump specifically does something means little in this context; Trump is one person.
Jiro
8mo ago
Even if one were to recognize that people on their side were using such a tactic, there's nothing they can do about it other than to maybe abandon their side over an argument of principle... which is not going to happen.
They can 1) admit the other guys are crazy and 2) answer the question "how is my side winning not going to give the crazies influence?" If they can't answer that, especially #2, then yeah there's nothing they can do about it, but sometimes there is nothing you can do about it, and recognizing that is just recognizing the truth.
There's also a difference between "there are crazies on my side" and "the crazies on my side are the ones with influence", especially when the news media sees the former and pretends it's the latter because it doesn't like you.
Jiro
8mo ago
The Metropolitan Police has one of the highest homicide solve rates of any major western urban police force.
Is that because they have better police, or because they have killers who are worse at hiding their kills?
I could imagine that, for instance, lone killers might find coverups harder than gang killers.
Jiro
5mo ago
f the deep state can have its way even when /ourguy/ wins, then why does it also need to rig elections?
That's like asking "if you have a password, why do you also need any other security measures?".
Security is multilayered, because each level is not perfect on its own. So is corruption.
Jiro
8mo ago
If I tell someone shooting heroin that it's killing them and they need to stop, they can decide that actually I just hate them, and if they insist on doing so I certainly can't stop them
There are certainly circumstances where someone telling people this would be mainly motivated by contempt of heroin users, and where it would be correct to infer hostility. Furthermore, society has norms of religious tolerance that it does not have around heroin tolerance, and by proclaiming that your outgroup is going to suffer, you are violating norms that you are not for heroin users.
Christians positing the existence of Hell neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket
I'm pretty sure you're quoting Jefferson out of context here.
Also, notice that actually saying "I hate you and you should die" neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. By your reasoning not only is loudly talking about your outgroup's suffering not hostile, literal direct hatred isn't hostile either.
Jiro
8mo ago
Taking a stance, outside a few weird rationalist forums, implicitly means taking a stance against central examples and claims, even if that's not the literal meaning of your words.
Jiro
10mo ago
their are Christians who have been to “Narnia” and reject it anyway.
You're claiming there are Christians who have good evidence for God and have then become atheists afterwards? I doubt that.
Jiro
11mo ago
That seems an odd claim to make in regard to a case in which a former President was found liable by a jury.
Why? The former president is the underdog here.
Jiro
20d ago
It may be the whisper network distorting the idea that computer operators were female.
And why was it on top of Google?
As the unintentional effect of stupid algorithms. Again, by your reasoning since a lot of people click on spam, they want to read spam.
You keep oscillating between 'true/false' and 'minority'
It's both.
What I am suggesting is that you can't even have a discussion on whether or not something is true or not if you ban it.
It's not banned. It's just not shown to people who want something else. People who actually want will still get it if they search for it. You're acting as if Google won't return Holocaust denial no matter what you do. They're not doing that. They're not even making it difficult to find.
Besides, there is no "discussion" except among a tiny minority.
Jiro
2mo ago
The specifics absolutely do matter. It's easy to find and notice examples of women blaming problems on feminist reasons. When they do, society approves of it and doesn't question it. These two factors make it matter to point it out.
You can't find more than one Donald Trump doing it, and when you do, the media won't defend him.
Jiro
2mo ago
Nobody can possibly give an exhaustive list of all the ways in which the rules can advantage a trained lawyer. Asking for them to give a list of rule objections just leads to a situation where they left one out or didn't phrase their objection properly, and you go "Ha ha, well now you admitted in advance the rules are okay, so I can do anything I want that you didn't mention, and you have no reason to complain".
It's just like the situation with rationalist bets, except instead of "you're probably not going to phrase the bet in a way free of loopholes" it's "you're probably not going to phrase your objection to the rules in a way free of loopholes".
Jiro
7mo ago
But he could still decide to stop doing that at literally any moment.
So could anyone else. If a woman is employed, her employer could fire her. If she works in a store the government could zone the area and make it illegal to operate the store.
There's a difference between a not 100% certain source of income and no income. Counting the former as the latter is lying with figures.
Jiro
7mo ago
No legislation has been proposed, no legislation is being drafted.
This is an example of the government laundering legislation through private entities by pressuring the private entities that if they don't obey, they will be faced with legislation. If they do obey, then the government can claim to have nothing to do with it because it's "just private entities, surely they can do whatever they want".
Jiro
10mo ago
If someone has an obviously Hispanic name like "Pedro Gonzales" and the media reports statements about "whites" by him, I'm going to wonder exactly what the media has left out. Is this another example of the "white Hispanic"?
Jiro
10mo ago
Why are you pretending that HBD has only ever been about IQ?
HBD as used by rationalists should be about IQ, because IQ can be measured. Claiming that Jews are bad people for some HBD-related reason that you can't measure is incorrectly using HBD.
I will concede that HBD may give you a reason to hate Jews if you use it incorrectly, but I don't think that tells you much about HBD. Anything can give you a reason for anything if you use it incorrectly.
Because it's an idea that disagrees with Catholic doctrine and not only is it expressed in a very rude and aggressive way, but that aspect is tied to why you'd want to say it in the first place. There's a reason why it would be nothing more than a weak joke to say "I find Jesus sexually attractive", and why nobody would actually say that.
I don't for one moment buy that a man pole dancing on a crucifix is just a disagreement with doctrine. The whole reason for doing it is that Catholics don't like them doing it. I'm not even sure what doctrine they're purportedly expressing.
Because it's inherently engaging with the series on a very superficial level.
Is it possible that they're a fan of the series anyway? Sure, but it's not the way to bet.
More options
Context Copy link