Jiro
16hr ago
If something straightforwardly helps your opponent and harms you, any claims that it does the opposite are likely to be concern trolling or motivated reasoning.
Refusing to punish bad things done by a Muslim who was in an anti-Western group, on the basis of human rights, straightforwardly helps the left. Yes, it may hurt more than it helps because of backlash; that's not impossible. But I'd heavily doubt it, because it's too easy as a biased human to come up with wishful thinking and think "well, maybe my opponent isn't really winning" when he obviously is.
Jiro
1d ago
abolish affirmative action in colleges and mandate that states allow individuals to carry guns
Neither of these have worked. Everyone who might be affected just refuses to obey the ruling and nothing happens to them. The others are left-wing causes so they didn't face this problem.
Jiro
1d ago
but the reality is no one that matters cares about his entire existence
Then what's the point of posting about him?
Jiro
2d ago
What's your threshold for absolute fortune? How many multiples of the money you put in?
We can start with "whatever anon_ thought it meant when he said that we could get an absolute fortune".
What separates the real world from the fake world?
If I ask you "did this actually happen", and you said "no" (truthfully), then it is not real.
Jiro
2d ago
It depends on what the processes are.
If the processes are "this set of criteria means sanction, and this set of criteria means AAQC, and the criteria are defined such that no post can meet both sets at the same time", then they are working.
If the processes are "find a list of mod sanctioned posts, and explicitly exclude them from the candidates for AAQC", the processes are not working. If the criteria for AAQC were fair and applied fairly, you wouldn't need to explicltly exclude them.
Jiro
2d ago
If mod sanctions and AAQCs are done in a sensible manner, it should not be possible for a post to get both. If it is, that implies that one of the two processes has failed. The solution is to fix the process, not to arbitrarily separate them.
Jiro
2d ago
You are not going to get low risk and absolute fortune at the same time for anything in the real world.
Jiro
4d ago
The left absolutely subscribes to America being number one, its just their version of America instead of what America actually is or what the right and normies say they want.
If I'm from Mars and landed my saucer in America to take it over, would you say that I wanted America to be number one, I just wanted this to be an America run by Martians?
"I want America to be number one" has to imply a certain amount of respect for America as it is or the idea becomes meaningless.
Jiro
5d ago
I just said "risk aversion". That's the whole point. You can't make an absolute fortune without risk, and I don't want to take the risk. The implication of
You can make an absolute fortune on that prediction, if it comes true.
is that anyone who really believed that would spend their money on it in order to make a fortune, and that anyone who refuses to spend the money doesn't really believe it.
This implication is not true when there is risk.
This is just a slight variation on "you don't really believe it, because if you did you'd bet money like a real rationalist".
Jiro
5d ago
It is not possible to 1) lose nothing if it went badly and 2) make a fortune if it went well.
Jiro
6d ago
Sorry, risk aversion. The probability that would let you say "that's pretty likely" is not the same as the probability that would make it make sense to sink a lot of money into something. If I thought it was 80% likely, for instance, I certainly wouldn't take that 20% chance of losing my shirt. At best I might slightly change the distribution of money that I was going to invest anyway.
Jiro
12d ago
Define "good for". If you waste your life playing video games, but you would otherwise have starved to death, is that good for you? I would say that it is, ignoring semantic questions about whether "better" counts as "good".
Jiro
12d ago
As recently as the 60s Indonesia launched an anti-Chinese/anti-communist pogram that killed a few million people.
Wikipedia says half a million total and that the Chinese were "thousands".
Jiro
16d ago
Even if you have both number 2 and 3 together so that you are not applying double standards to Jews, this amounts to "someone who supports politics that I don't like should be put in jail and forcibly removed from power". "Getting the country into a war" is not special; in a democracy, people are permitted to advocate for policies that you consider harmful.
Jiro
16d ago
The Blair Witch Project was a successful low-budget film, and it managed to achieve fame even without the help of internet video distribution!
The Blair Witch Project is a special case because being low budget is inherently part of the story, which alleviates most of the problems caused by having to be low budget. This doesn't generalize.
Jiro
16d ago
The issue here isn't even Bari per se, it's the criteria defining the nature of the pool.
I wouldn't count "critical of wokeness without being outright MAGA" as a problem with the nature of the pool, in the sense you seem to mean. That's probably going to be the best you'll get if you're going through journalists--exactly what should the pool have been instead?
Jiro
16d ago
It also gives a lot of authority to religions, for instance Israel does not recognize secular marriage, thus effectively banning any gay marriage- as no faith in Israel officiates such unions.
Israel recognizes foreign marriages, including gay marriages.
Jiro
21d ago
But they're not. US healthcare is overpriced, but the money is flowing to doctors and hospitals, not to the insurance industry, whose profits are small.
I don't see any numbers in that linked post, or in the posts linked from that, that compare hospital profit and insurance industry profit.
And even some of the links from that post blame the problems on the insurers when you seem to think they don't.
Would you limit this to true facts and stats, or would you include false ones as well?
(If you limit it to true ones, you will have a problem because many "true" facts will be false as applied, unless you're getting down to insane levels of detail like "for people in your particular socioeconomic situation, in your specific state with your specific jobs..." And you probably won't have good statistics for those anyway. Of course, you could decide you don't care about truth when you do this, which has its own problems.)
More options
Context Copy link