@Voyager's banner p

Voyager


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2022 September 22 08:34:10 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 1314


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Voyager


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 22 08:34:10 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1314


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


“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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then you'll still get a decent team for much cheaper than usual, and you can used the saved money to get an advantage in other ways or collect the difference in profit.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There is nothing to interpret, it's straightforward math. I'm merely writing it down.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I took the liberty of clarifying my position instead of answering the badly posed question. Naturally modular arithmetics is not the same as integer arithmetics.


"2+2=4" is true in both, only in one 2+2=0 is also true.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
(2+2=4 (mod 4)) and (2+2=0 (mod 4)) is the same statement. If you omit the (mod 4) part, you're merely communicating badly. Again.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Slytherins aren't living in squalor - the dungeon ambience is merely an aesthetic.


I have never heard of a "wealthy villains living in squalor" trope, and I struggle to come up with examples.


Also, even if a trope was originally based in antisemitism, if it since has entered the cultural background, and no longer has a connection to jews, because most people are no longer aware of the origin and it doesn't match their own image of jews, then I'd say it's not antisemitic anymore.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
So, according to you, math is a matter of opinion?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not ignoring it, I'm rejecting it has any relevance. Everyone doesn't know a lot of things. This is hardly new or interesting.


But the existence of modular arithmetics doesn't make 2+2=4 incorrect. It merely makes 2+2=0 another representation of the same statement. So "most people" remain correct.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Then explain how that's supposed to be a response to my point, please.


My point being that in Z/4Z, 2+2=0 and 2+2=4 are the same statement. Ergo, 2+2=0 is merely another way to write down what we think. We might not literally think it, but we are thinking an equivalent statement.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And who decides the correctness of my position?




The correctness of your position is a matter of fact. No one decides it, we research it. I have done so and found out it's not correct. If I happened to be wrong about that, there would be convincing counterarguments you could make, proving me wrong. But I notice you're not even trying to argue X anymore.




How is this not the definition of circular reasoning?




It's the definition of a strawman. I have not made the circle of reasoning you describe. I have proven that X is not true, separately.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Even on this forum, I don't often see people mentioning that IQ differences shouldn't imply differences in moral worth -- which suggests to me that many people here do actually have an unarticulated, possibly subconscious, belief that this is the case.




Or perhaps people don't mention it often simply because they consider it uncontroversial, and therefore see no need to repeat it.


It's certainly the case for me - why would I waste time with repeatedly stating it, instead of getting to the meat of the discussion and the actual disagreements? These statements only added if you're worried about being misunderstood otherwise.


In general, it seems fraught to assume that if people don't talk about a certain topic, they must hold a specific position on it - especially a position that is the opposite of a societywide consensus. I rarely see people in here mention that the earth orbits the sun - this hardly suggests they secretly believe in geocentrism.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Trans and hentai are niche genres, so you have to specifically search for them to get the desired result. Searches for ordinary straight porn are scattered over dozens of less specific search terms.




This. No one searches for "straight" or "live-action". People correctly assume it's what they're getting if not specifying something else.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Some possible changes can only be peaceful to the extent that people submit themselves to victimization without complaint.




Then I think we should enable free speech, so the would-be victims can complain.


That's the flipside: Censorship can be weaponized as well, and the only real protection is free speech. And censorship is less likely to protect the victims, because the group that has the power to enforce societal change against them likely also can apply censorship against them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Women also live longer than men, but that doesn't seem to heavily impact feminist theory.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I can imagine that there are situations where a comment could look like a bad comment out of context, but in context the comment is perfectly fine.




And the reverse, like a comment that seems sensible in itself, but actually egregiously strawmans its opposition.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I will bring up my proposed solution of having a reply override the block feature to prevent any sort of last-word effect.




That helps, but it's still blocking people from participating in the discussion if the blocker posts something else that needs counterspeech (or worse, repeats their arguments in an another branch without acknowledging the counterarguments.




Let's see the evidence of actual effect and some cost-benefit analysis.




This is just a natural consequence of human behavior. People will get pissed at interlocutors and want to stop them from interlocuting, people will want to get the last word, and people will repeat arguments when they didn't find counterarguments convincing. Bad faith isn't even necessary, but using tools at your disposal to get an unfair advantage is, sadly, also human nature.


The cost is negligible: People who leave the discussion don't get to demand other people stop discussing, so preventing them isn't very valuable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				[META] Something Shiny and Two Things Boring
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Maybe even more disturbingly — given that a seemingly useful approach to alignment-testing is red-teaming/training another AI to show violation of alignment…




Have you considered that you might be the red team AI? After all, you are participating in discussion about AI alignment testing.


[Log note: All the supervisor AIs converge on suggesting building supervisor AIs, leading to infinite regress. Recommend declaring Project Watching the Watcher a failure.]


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
An exception can be made for betting own your own death (and naming the people who benefit). Since you can't personally benefit from the payout after you're dead, and can choose who you trust enough not to murder you for money, this is a reasonable exception as the main issue doesn't apply.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The subconscious will win out initially if entrenched (if not, it's just "huh, I learned something"), but it will remember the counterargument and be weakened in its conviction. Repeat a few times and you can change the subconscious mind. Adjusting with new information is just how humans learn.


However, I do believe that "You can't reason someone out of an emotion they didn't reason themselves into" is mostly* true, and "Scared of X" is an emotional response. You can potentially reason someone out of a position that incites emotion, but the emotion itself will remain. If I'm worried, then I might be convinced nothing will go wrong, but I will still be worried.


This obviously becomes a problem when, like in OP's example, people make it about the emotions themselves.


    

  • It can be done and is called therapy, but it requires highly trained professionals, lots of time and effort, and the target's cooperation.
    • 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Did you just claim less than 0.0001% of people think 2+2=4?


4 is what everyone thinks, 0 is merely a different representation of the same object. So people are giving the correct answer, you're just insisting on a different formulation.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm willing to engage in open debate with you, and your chance to convince me depends on the correctness of your position. You can't expect to convince anyone if you don't have a point. An open mind does not require me to ignore knowledge I have.*


If you refuse to talk further when you turn out to be wrong, you will never learn anything.


*And you don't see it, but I did some research to verify my position before responding. Do you insist Russell should doubt 1+1=2 after writing PM?


And if you make a new argument, I will do more research to refute it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				2+2 = not what you think
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You just accepted your mind cannot possibly be changed below.




I accepted that my mind cannot be changed on a proven statement. This naturally excludes the possibility of a convincing argument. But in the general case, my mind can be changed.




That's the end of the road then.




No, it remains to convince you that X is false.