philosoraptor
No bio...
User ID: 285
People should absolutely be punished for trusting bogus information because that's how you nip that shit in the bud. If you want people to trust government officials your first, last, and only priority should be ensuring that government officials are trustworthy.
Even granting your basic premise, how does your proposed remedy accomplish this? I mean... the suggestion is literally to punish more or less random third parties, who didn't do anything wrong other than believe bad information they were given. If anyone should be punished here surely it's the people who actually dispensed the misinformation. I fail to see how your proposed remedy does anything to disincentivize the behaviour it's supposedly aimed at, because it isn't even aimed at the right people. What I do see very clearly is that it's patently unjust, for the same reason. I mean... people shouldn't be punished for stuff other people did. It doesn't get more basic than that.
Another of my most hated ones is the idea that only 7% of meaning comes from words (the rest from body language and tone). This doesn't even make any fucking sense, much less have any evidence that it's true. It's a terrible description (like, you'd have to be borderline-illiterate to go to the original source and have this as your takeaway) of a study that was making a completely different, much narrower point. (Specifically, that if your verbal and nonverbal communication don't match, people will generally believe the nonverbal portion - e.g. you say to your spouse "everything's fine!" in an angry, aggressive tone, this will not persuade them that everything's fine.)
Thinking for ten seconds about the last non-trivial conversation you had (roughly speaking, one where novel information was exchanged on a topic other than the participants' current emotional states) should be enough to disprove this idea decisively. How, you should ask yourself, could 93% of that information have been exchanged in a way that was independent of the words used? In most cases, you will find that the question not only does not have a good answer, but is hard to even make sense of.
This has not prevented the idea from showing up in training materials from major multinational corporations, not to mention the Web sites of universities that should damn well know better.
philosoraptor
10mo ago
... context?
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Not that there weren't recognizable proto-wokist streams within leftism at the time, but it wasn't nearly the all-encompassing thing it can seem to be now. In particular race was nowhere near as central to North American leftism before about 2014 as it is now. In fact one of the many things I (pretty leftist at least by current Motte standards) lament about the rise of wokism is the near-total absence of, not only anti-war sentiment, but of any consideration of foreign policy at all, from 2023 leftism.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
Also he needs to divest all but 100k in crypto and only keep that 100k so that if the guy does break in your friend has something to give him and his family doesn't get killed. I think the reason crypto is dumb doesn't really need an explanation beyond my comment being something anyone with a large amount of it needs to worry about.
Doesn't this argument prove way too much? Why doesn't it apply to money in any form? While I suppose crypto somewhat increases the available attack surface, it seems to me your argument applies to anyone known to be rich no matter where they have their wealth stashed, especially if they manage to make enemies with these kinds of resources.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
I fold in the spots where I'm 60% fave for all my money to save it for the 75% spots.
???
What does this mean, or have to do with the discussion? It's formatted as a quote but I can't find it in OP or anywhere else.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Surely it makes a difference that "some dude" is a person in an official position whose job is, at least in part, to dispense accurate information about this. If anyone did anything wrong here it's them.
I guess the disagreement is largely about what kind of mens rea requirement should hold here. I don't see why voting illegally should be a strict liability thing like you apparently do, especially if the underlying goal is to prevent *intentional *voter fraud (though such votes should not be counted, if there's a way to enforce that without de-anonymizing them). Doing it with conscious intent, sure.
philosoraptor
17d ago
That's 7% of all interracial marriages that are black man/white woman compared to 9% of interracial marriages that are white man/asian woman. Hardly a substantial difference.
It's huge when you consider the relative proportions of Black vs Asian people in the US.
philosoraptor
1mo ago
I understood most of those individual words...
philosoraptor
1mo ago
The stolen item is just ... an item. Anyone can produce a backpack and say that guy stole it and my friend here saw them.
A backpack seems like an almost uniquely bad example. You just separate the parties and ask each a few questions about its contents and it's easy to figure out which one it belongs to.
philosoraptor
3mo ago
he does not indulge in masturbatory stylistic flourish
Maybe if you're used to his non-standard spellings and such. He reads like an arrogant 15-year-old to me (albeit a very clever one, though not as much so as he seems to think).
philosoraptor
5mo ago
Canadian here, and I'd never heard it until this year when it was suddenly popping up all over, and never for a school or daycare located anywhere other than Ireland or Faerun.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Only 1/50 parents actually objected to nudity being shown (the other two objected to not being informed)
You (and others) talk like these are entirely disjoint concerns, but how separate are they really? Why is informing the parents required in this case in a way it isn't with, say, multiplication tables? Maybe it's a failure of imagination, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a plausible answer that isn't rooted in what some posters are calling "American prudishness".
philosoraptor
1yr ago
A significant portion of women seem to prefer sharing a top man over having a sub-par specimen for themselves.
Which women? Where? Based on what empirical evidence?
This seems to be one of those things - it has plenty of counterparts on the SocJus side of things - that's said because it follows from a theory someone is attached to, not because of any particular evidence that it's true. Outside of a very small number of poly arrangements, in which men at the top of the attractiveness scale aren't that overrepresented based on the ones I'm familiar with, I can't think of any cases where this is true. Yeah, it would logically follow if a lot of the ideas that float around the "manosphere" were true, but so much the worse for those ideas. But it's not something I actually see happening at any significant scale.
philosoraptor
1yr ago
Yankee Stadium has 12,000 seats
As perhaps an example of your larger point, this seemed implausibly low to me (it's about 20% smaller than the smallest full-time[1] arena in the NHL, a league with a much smaller following than MLB), so I did a quick Google and turned up a figure of 54,251, about 4.5 times your number. Where are you getting 12,000 from?
[1] I'm excluding the university arena the Arizona Coyotes are temporarily housed in, as that's not meant to be a permanent arrangement.
philosoraptor
12d ago
The teacher in Batley is still in hiding, the groveling of the West Yorkshire mum is still on full display to see
These could use links or at least slightly more explanation.
philosoraptor
17d ago
I think we can set the bar a little higher than "not the absolute vilest possible (relevant) thing you could say".
philosoraptor
1mo ago
they get hammered 10-1
In basketball? That's an improbably bordering on impossibly low score, even if everyone's just learning. Getting shut out except for one free throw (the only way you could get exactly one point) is particularly weird.
philosoraptor
2mo ago
What was this in response to, originally? It seems interesting but without the original context it's hard to know what to make of it.
philosoraptor
5mo ago
If, in your experience, ordering dinner routinely turns into the kind of power play where these seem like the most salient questions, you have my condolences. All I can tell you is that I seriously doubt your experience is representative or, more importantly, in any way healthy.
philosoraptor
5mo ago
Upper 20s is also pretty bloody hot for "room temperature". Try 20-21. Of course the basic point still stands.
philosoraptor
7mo ago
One thing, or rather a couple closely related things, I don't understand. If Carter left the union, how would she still fall under their CBA, and why would they be expected to represent her? Seems like she wanted to have her cake and eat it too. These are exactly the things she'd be voluntarily giving up by choosing not to be part of the union.
Honestly I'm surprised leaving the union is even something you *can *do at SWA - most workplaces I'm familiar with are either unionized or they're not, and in the former case you either belong to the union or you don't work there. Or maybe that statement was misleading? What exactly is meant by "had left the union several years prior" here?
Murphy's responses make a lot more sense if you assume that her true objections to the sex industry are really borne out of an aesthetic or disgust aversion, and specifically only when men are the patrons.
Okay, not the most substantive point but this error, which seemed to be pretty rare at one time, is everywhere lately and it drives me nuts. "Borne" is not a fancy alternate spelling of "born", as many people seem to have suddenly concluded. It's a different word with a different meaning ("carried", more or less). You could say, for example, that Murphy's responses are "borne up by a mighty wind of righteous indignation", or something like that, though that does seem a bit purple for either Yassine or myself now that I read back over it. But in this case the word you want is just "born".
philosoraptor
8mo ago
With the sheer number of Ph.Ds being minted in comparison to the number of available positions, I doubt spousal hiring hurts the quality of research or teaching much. You won't optimize, but you'll still get someone pretty good.
I mostly remember them doubling down and implying that Silver was somehow super-extra-wrong and had lost credibility by saying Trump had only a 30% chance... never mind that most other pollsters were much further off (many had it more like 1%) and didn't get the same treatment.
More options
Context Copy link