wifje
25d ago
I am referring to the fact that as mentioned, people that for example are posting about holocaust denial are very biased in that they would post about it a lot, and would be happy to argue with you about it a lot, because they presumably are derive a lot of enjoyment out of doing so, and because any argument on it still gives it more exposure.
But if any time they want to discuss how the Holocaust didnt happen instead they get bogged down in arguing about to decide how could arguments be settled, which is technically an entirely different meta argument, the balance of the discussion wouldnt be as biased. They wont get "unfair" utility by spreading their opinion more than before, and the argument would be one where both sides arent particularly enjoying prolonging.
wifje
26d ago
We can discuss how should topics be evaluated rather than the which the person would derive significantly less biased to prolong. If a forum is full of people arguing what is the best way to evaluate the conclusion of a topic that would be an improvement imo.
wifje
28d ago
In my opinion the easy solution to holocaust denial, or really any sufficiently eugh-ified topic, is to shut down discussion unless the person engaging in it is willing to put enough on the line and agree on judging criteria for how the discussion could be resolved.
I.e. It would not be beneficial to me to discuss the topic unless the person is willing to be 10k$< and agree beforehand on how could we reach an agreement.
I doubt any holocaust denier would be willing to accept any judging by reasonable people, so thats as far as that topic would ever go, as it should. If you are so diwconnected from the foundation of productive discussion, correct or not the value of talking to you is negative.
wifje
1mo ago
Perhaps most people dont currently intend to be childless and just are, but when being childless is accompanied by debilitating taxes, wouldnt anyone that isnt currently married and expecting opt to live abroad, and if they get lucky and find a partner they might come back?
My main point is that policy cant exist in a vacuum. A lot of the policy points you mention act as if people cant choose alternatives, while in reality anyone that is upper middle class and above can leave the country. Especially any of the policy that targets people with millions of dollars...
Im suggesting you reject any discussion of facts and immediately redirect it to " ok what external criteria are you willing to accept as arbiter for a 10k bet on this argument. Any discussion on how to settle a bet shouldnt include the facts of the argument.
More options
Context Copy link