jimmy
1yr ago
Should some commenter point out "hey, strongyloides was theorized to stress the immune system, not kill through hyperinfection!" or "I reran the meta-analysis and got blah blah blah," does Marinos pick that up and signal-boost it?
Try it, and find out!
jimmy
1yr ago
There are no blade length restrictions in California, and yet I've never seen anyone walk around with a sword or even an impractically large knife. Even when I was threatened by people with knives, the blades weren't especially long. It just doesn't seem to be an issue in practice
jimmy
1yr ago
The law does support that kind of standard, so long as the fear is reasonable and provoking fear is intentional.
Assault: ["intentionally place an alleged “victim” in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm."](
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/what-is-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon/)
If it's done subtly it can be hard to know how to score it, let alone prove it in a court of law, but that doesn't make it any less real or game changing. There's a very real chance that the "pastor" was able to correctly infer that JTarrou was armed from his behavior, and that otherwise he wouldn't have backed down so peacefully. I've been in a similar situation, where out of place confidence clued me in that the people threatening me were almost certainly armed, and that I couldn't afford to risk trying to de-escalate the way I otherwise would. My inference happened to be proven correct, but the presence of weapons changed things on both sides well before they came out.
There's something interesting going on in this discussion here, and in previous discussions on Alexandros's writing on this topic.
There's a lot of people pointing at how Alexandros is pretty critical of Scott/Scott's epistemics (and curiously missing his similar criticisms of the community's epistemics), rather than just focusing on whether or not Scott's conclusions are true and/or justified. Alexandros does seem pretty critical, so fair enough there. And there's a conversation to be had about how critical is appropriate, and how to figure out how critical is appropriate.
But that conversation isn't happening.
Instead, we're getting accusations that Alexandros is "attacking"/"grinding his axe against"/"picking on" Scott rather than sticking to the object level and minimizing "unnecessary heat"... in a way that sure looks a bit like "attacking"/"grinding axes against"/"picking on" Alexandros. You know, with insults including but not limited to "absolutely autistic", "creepy", and "fucking stalker". People showing up just to let everyone know that they don't care to talk to him because he's bad. And, of course, not one object level rebuttal yet as of when I'm writing this.
Is Alexandros acting like an obsessed stalker who once got attention from a girl, and letting his emotions pull him away from truth and honesty? Is Scott letting the fear of his "expert status" being challenged interfere with his neutral truth seeking? Are these questions both completely fair and valid, both out of line by virtue of attempting to address the person instead of the argument, or is there some principle saying that one can be asserted without argument while the other is unacceptable to question even with many pages of argument? And if so, what is that principle?
So far no one is addressing Alexandros's arguments about whether ivermectin works.
Or whether Scott's arguments against ivermectin are valid.
Or whether Alexandros's criticisms of Scott's (and the communty's!) epistemics are valid.
It's all focused on a rather uncharitable mind reading of Alexandros motivations. This isn't entirely a bad thing in itself since there's actually a lot to be gained by tracking the least-flattering-consistent-explanation of people's behaviors/beliefs, but it sure is interesting what happens when you apply this metric uniformly and judge those criticizing Alexandros on this metric.
More options
Context Copy link