Voyager
7mo ago
The more measured case (and this one definitely is in the official No campaign) is that a Yes result would have a) built a Pro-Aboriginal consensus, which might make people more friendly to reparations, b) directly provided some level of soft influence to Aboriginals - that's the whole point, giving them an advisory body - which they might then use to advocate for reparations. I shy away from using this as motive to vote - feels a bit Machiavellian
Only if you think reparations are just and good but you just personally don't want to pay for them. If you are against reparations for fundamental or even pragmatic reasons, then "vote against a proposal that will have bad consequences further down the line" is perfectly reasonable.
Note that "it will cost money without achieving anything useful" is also a valid reason to be against something, even if it doesn't come out of your pocket.
Voyager
11mo ago
Unlike stabbing, choking is a continuous action. If you choke someone out, the expectation is that they will start to recover once they're released. "Choking someone to death" is generally expected to mean holding the choke until they're dead.
So if Penny choked Neely out, but released him before he died, that makes the excessive force and negligence claims much weaker. It certainly sinks any accusations of intent.
If he had punched him out, then he hit his head on the ground when falling and died, "beat him to death" could be said to be technically true, but wouldn't exactly give an audience an accurate picture of what happened.
Voyager
1yr ago
In our case, informations isn't just limited, but artificially limited, i.e. omitted. The information is indeed still available, just by deriving it from context. We both know monday after sunday is next week.
You're making an argument based on information you know is incomplete, and the missing information invalidates it. Don't do that.
Voyager
1yr ago
you clearly implied that "more than 0.0001% people think 2+2 is necessarily 4", obviously you meant in standard arithmetic, since very few people know that 2+2=4 (mod 4) even exists.
Obviously I meant "with unspecified context", because that was the example we were talking about. Yes, people don't know you're sneakily talking about modular arithmetic - but "2+2=4" is still true, so people are giving the correct answer, despite the confusion.
And you also accepted 2+2=4 (mod 4) is not the same statement as 2+2=4
Can you just fucking stop misrepresenting me? That would be great, thanks.
Voyager
1yr ago
I see blocking as analogous to walking away from someone at a party. I haven't restricted their conversations with anyone else. Having them reply to me, extra scrutiny or not, undermines my opt out.
I think that's a good analogy, and I disagree with your conclusion. If you walk away from me at a party after a discussion got heated, I still get to look at everyone else and say "PR's parting comment was wrong though, right?" If you walk away, you don't get to enforce having the last word - the people left still get to discuss what you said, you just won't hear it anymore.
Blocking should mirror that, so people don't get to make a flawed argument and prevent counterarguments by blocking interlocutors.
Voyager
1yr ago
Not really. I can guarantee you that Russell used 1+1=2 when calculating his daily expenses even before he formally proved it. Had he failed at his attempt to prove it, he would have gone on believing and using it. I can guarantee you he didn't scold any colleagues for using 1+1=2 without proof.
He wanted a formal proof for itself, not because one was needed.
Voyager
2mo ago
How do you think the Hausa or Fulani are likely to respond if an Igbo comes up to them and says that, actually, on account of his people’s average IQ being at least one standard deviation above the Nigerian average, they ought to be in charge of the country and occupy the majority of the top jobs in Lagos and Abuja and so on? How do antisemitic white nationalists respond if you tell them that actually it’s a good thing that Jews are disproportionately in positions of power because we are, in fact, significantly smarter than them on average and that effect is exacerbated in the long tail at IQ 160+ (so we deserve it really)?
But if HBD is true, the Igbo or Jews will disproportionately occupy higher positions, and you need to explain it.
Realistically, the alternative to "we deserve it because we're smarter" is "we don't actually deserve it, we're just oppressing you", which is clearly worse for racial relations.
HBD as a fact of nature is already leading to racial tensions via disparate outcomes. The Hausa or white supremacist are already angry because they don't have positions of power. Discussing that there's a good reason isn't the problem. Denying discussion of the good reason, leaving oppression on the table as the only potential explanation, makes it worse.
Sure, a politically color-blind world, where race is considered about as relevant as hair color and no one cares about racial distributions of anything, would be preferable in practical terms, but that's not the world we live in. And in such a world, HBD could simply be a nerdy niche topic that no one except a few scientists cares about. HBD isn't the problem here.
Voyager
1yr ago
But that is the point: most people make assumptions.
Assumptions about the meaning of symbols, namely that symbols carry their conventional meaning unless denoted otherwise.
This is a necessary prerequisite of communication, and messing with it is merely a failure to communicate.
Voyager
2mo ago
Second, many better tools already exist (standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting). HBD is a worse substitute than existing policy frameworks.
HBD isn't a policy tool. It's merely an observation about the world. Standardized tests, colorblind policy, merit based immigration vetting are all compatible with HBD, it merely predicts that the results will be racially "disparate".
And since the disparate impact is one of the main arguments against merit-based policies, HBD is relevant as a defense thereof.
Voyager
4mo ago
I've been suggesting win/loss record statistics as an unambiguous and definitive empirical metric here, so we can ignore all teh rhetorical games and just decide the matter on facts.
Per your claim, the situation of fact is that we don't have good evidence, so we need to decide what to do as a default until we attain it, whether the burden of proof is on excluding or allowing transwomen in. You are the one who started rhetorical games about "women on women's sports", weaponizing the ambiguity of "woman", with regards to that.
You cut out the part where you specified (2+2=4) in standard arithmetic before I answered. That's the misrepresentation.
Since you seem to have hard time understanding context, I'll repeat my actual statement with the context explicit:
(2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) are not the same statement.
With that cleared up, any further questions?
Voyager
1yr ago
No, math is abstract truth. If the application ever becomes an issue, you're looking to apply math to another field.
In any case, the statement in question is a straightforward arithmetic equation. There's no room for interpretation here.
Voyager
1yr ago
I literally said "it doesn't matter if Bertrand Russell personally doubted it or not".
No one doubted it, because it wasn't actually reasonable to doubt it. Russell wanted to formalize a foundation, he wanted to prove that arithmetics derived from logic, not that arithmetics was true.
Doubt is essential in all fields.
Not doubt about math or fundamental logic. That is only reasonable in philosophy. An engineer who doubts 1+1=2 will never build any bridges, and no bridges will crash because an engineer assumed 1+1=2.
If you doubt the fundamentals, you're doing philosophy. If you want to get anything done, you need to stop doing philosophy. You need to choose some axioms, build a knowledge base and then get to work on questions that are actually in doubt.
100% certainty is extremely dangerous. And I don't see you addressing this at all.
Because right now a fallacious argument is being made for too little certainty, not too much. I'm addressing the bad arguments that are actually on the table.
Voyager
1yr ago
Wrong. Information by its very nature is limited. Nobody is "artificially" limiting the information that can fit in one bit, one bit can only fit one bit of information. Period.
That's a red herring. We're not talking about bits. We're talking about the information we have about your example, which was given in english.
No, we don't. You are assuming where the week starts.
Liar. The end of the week being sunday was included in your description of the example.
All information is incomplete.
Not all information is incomplete in the sense that reasoning from it leads to false conclusions. Stop defending your fallacious argument.
Voyager
1yr ago
In general? Yes. In this example? Absolutely the speaker's fault. If you're using non-standard symbols, you need to denote that.
Voyager
1yr ago
That's not how modular arithmetic works: 2+2=4 is still true, it's just that 4=0 mod 4, so 2+2=0 is also true.
Even if your example were true, that would just be notation confusion: The statement commonly meant by 2+2=4 is always true. So if I say 2+2=4 is always true, I'm correct, and if you say 2+2=? and the answer isn't 4 you're just communicating badly by omitting relevant information about the problem statement. In honest conversation this doesn't change anything.
Voyager
2mo ago
But the disparate impact doctrine is much harder to defend without "all races are equal", so it makes sense as a first step.
Voyager
11mo ago
Strangling is continuous, choking isn't (from a wrestling perspective).
A choke has a defined end; which is a tap, unconsciousness, or death.
No, a choke ends when it's released, which can be at any time. What happens afterwards isn't part of the choke.
A choke leads to unconsciousness somewhere between 5 and 15 seconds
That clearly didn't happen here though. Neely was fighting back for much longer.
Holding a choke for 10 minutes isn't excessive if the target is still fighting back at 9:50, just like shooting someone 14 times isn't excessive if the first 13 miss.
Voyager
1yr ago
you argued that (2+2=4) is always standard arithmetic
No, I didn't. If you believe otherwise, cite where I said it. Or stop misrepresenting me.
As I pointed out numerous times, by 2+2=4 in this context you meant in standard arithmetic
So you're "pointing out" to me what I meant. Have you considered that I can read my mind better than you can? After all, when someone talks about your position elsewhere , you're quick to call it out as assumptions. And when I offer clarification, you ignore it, only to repeat your strawman two posts later.
Obviously I meant "with unspecified context", because that was the example we were talking about. Yes, people don't know you're sneakily talking about modular arithmetic - but "2+2=4" is still true, so people are giving the correct answer, despite the confusion.
That was my clarification. I've had a lot of patience with you, but I can't really have a discussion with someone who talks to their own caricature of me and ignores what I actually say.
if 99.9999% of people think (2+2=4 in standard arithmetic) that does not equate to 99.9999% people thinking (2+2=4 (mod 4))
You weren't asking about 2+2 (mod 4) though. You were asking "2+2=" without context, and people answer "4", which is correct.
If they interpret the meaning of the string "2+2=" different than you, that's not anyone being wrong, that's just a misunderstanding caused by your bad communication. But luckily the misunderstanding doesn't matter, because the answer is correct in either interpretation.
Voyager
1yr ago
“African and/or female investors” have no reason to assume the gains from less-biased hiring outweigh the costs of running a business on idpol.
You don't need to "run on idpol". You can just keep in mind that everyone else undervalues the group, then hire purely on cost/quality, and you'll still end up ahead.
Also you're assuming running on idpol has net costs - in the current environment it seems like it has serious marketing advantages.
Voyager
1yr ago
There is nothing to interpret, it's straightforward math. I'm merely writing it down.
Voyager
1yr ago
Ghettoes are just the part of a city where a secluded minority lives. Jews living in ghettos is a historical fact, making it an antisemitic trope is already a stretch.
But all the houses have their own secluded dormitories - this isn't Slytherin-specific, it's Hogwarts-generic, so the ghetto comparison has no leg to stand on. "Dungeon" is just generic evil.
Adult Slytherins, at least the wealthy leaders*, live in manors. Unless "rich and evil" immediately makes you think "Jews" - in which case I suspect you are the antisemite - they should code to snooty aristocrats.
*Also an important distinction. The Malfoys are rich, but that's about it - the rank-and-file Slytherins/Death Dealers tend to be thugs.
Corrupted pattern-matching finding antisemitism where there isn't any is a rather big problem, but this is one of the more egregious examples.
No, merely exceedingly rigorous. He set out to prove 1+1=2, then after a lot of tedious work, he indeed proved that 1+1=2 is in fact true,
settling the debateconfirming what everyone already knew. He didn't actually doubt it, he merely wanted to put it on a formal foundation, and he did.He wasn't an engineer who was worried bridges would fall if everyone computed 1+1 incorrectly, he wasn't a politician who got challenged on his fiscal plan and needed to double-check his assumptions. He was a nerd who wanted clarity for its own sake, operating at the intersection between pure math and philosophy. That's the field where you would doubt 1+1=2, not because you actually doubt it, but because you expect insight from dispelling that doubt. It's the same level of abstraction as wondering whether you're actually a brain in a vat. In politics or engineering, you can't do that.
More options
Context Copy link