you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
No bio...
User ID: 92
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
3mo ago
It is untrue because there are no progressives here…
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
4mo ago
OP claimed
only 10% of divorces actually result in any actual alimony paid.
Is this wrong?
Robinson: You don't believe that Thomas Jefferson was a racist?
Rufo: It's not true. It's such a lazy reduction.
Robinson: Do you want me to quote him? [...]
Rufo: So I think to go back and say, "Oh, they're all racist." It's just so lazy.
Robinson: But it's true. It's not lazy, it's just a fact. [...] Again, it seems a way to not acknowledge that the country was founded by people who held Black people in chains and thought they were inferior.
Rufo: I acknowledge that. That's a fact. That's a historical fact. I don't see how anyone would deny that. [...] But to say that they are racist is a different claim because you're taking an ideological term and then back imposing it on them to discredit their work advancing equality. And so I think that I reject it in a linguistic frame, while acknowledging the factual basis that there was slavery.
So Rufo finds himself in a bit of a pickle. He's fully aware that he can't say "Thomas Jefferson, the man who believed blacks were inferior and held 130 of them in bondage, was not a racist" with a straight face. But simultaneously he also expends a lot of acrobatic energy trying to dodge answering a straightforward question.
I agree this makes it obvious that Rufo is refusing to abandon something indefensible because retreating is how battles are lost. I agree it's good to point this out when it happens. At the same Rufo is being quite honest that their actual disagreement is whether Thomas Jefferson should be viewed as a shitty person, so this really doesn't seem like a case of "thinking on your feet exposes the problem with your beliefs/honesty/etc." -- Rufo seems more than willing to be honest.
Robinson's insistence on only having that argument after establishing linguistically favorable footing makes Robinson seem unreasonable here. What's wrong with arguing whether a man who owned slaves and helped found America was a good person without having to use one of the most mind-killing words in all of discourse?
Might as well go around insisting that Republicans admit Hitler was "right leaning" before beginning any debate. "It's just a fact" right?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
11mo ago
Was hard for me to find explicit before/after online, so I'll paste the diff I stitched together here:
"Kiss the Girl" changes:
Yes, you want her.
Look at her, you know you do.
Possible she wants you, too.
There is one way to ask her.
Use your words, boy, and ask her
It don’t take a word. Not a single word.
If the time is right and the time is tonight
Go on and kiss the girl
In "Poor Unfortunate Souls" they simply remove the dialog about men liking women who don't talk:
Ursula: That's right! But, you'll have, your man. Life's full of tough choices, isn't it? Oh! And there is, one...more...thing! We haven't discussed the subject of payment...
You'll have your looks! Your pretty face!
And don't underestimate the importance of body language!
...
The men up there don't like a lot of blabber
They think a girl who gossips is a bore
...
It's she who holds her tongue who gets a man.
This has made it obvious that the /r/slatestarcodex community behaves radically different from the community of 2014.
The top comment on /r/slatestarcodex is:
(+77) Why the f--- is he wearing a fedora? Is he intentionally trying to make his arguments seem invalid? Is this guy actually a pro-AI mole to make anti-AI positions seem stupid? Because while I have not yet listened to his arguments, I must say he's already pissed in the well as far as first impressions go.
(+72) Forget the fedora. It's his mannerisms, his convoluted way of speaking, and his bluntness. He's just about the worst spokesperson for AI safety I can imagine.
We also have the "Can Eliezer even pass a calculus test" comment (+39) and "these videos are cringe and embarrassing" (+28).
The founding ethos of the community was centered around charity, scholarship, taking ideas seriously, with a strong disdain for personal attacks.
Now personal attacks are in, Eliezer has apparently fallen from grace, and it's more popular to baselessly speculate that he can't do Calculus than to engage with his actual arguments.
"I don't think Eliezer should be the face of the AI safety movement because he comes off as weird" is a perfectly fine thing to argue, but I remember when making disparaging remarks about someone was done regretfully and respectfully, not with zeal.
Rest in peace quokkas, the world was too harsh a place.
Rufo literally admitted to the fact. He's just not willing to capitulate on the word, for the exact same reason Democrats don't want to call the estate tax the "death tax" despite it being factually triggered by a death -- because everyone agrees on what the estate tax is and calling it a different name changes nothing about the actual substance of the disagreement. Refusing to use your opponent's loaded terminology has nothing to do with being dishonest.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
2d ago
You’ve blocked me, so I don’t expect a response, but how is not wanting underaged girls depicted sexually in video games a “feminist” thing?
Think back 10, 20, and 30 years and recall that this has a never been a partisan issue, let alone a predominantly leftist demand.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
6mo ago
@some has blocked me
Me too
There are plenty of people who aren’t interested in a place that tolerates anti-semitism. Somebody on /r/TheMotte or /r/slatestarcodex once made the interesting point that maximizing speech is completely different from refusing to censor anything — at a certain point you’re driving out as many viewpoints as you’re enabling by tolerating certain people.
Also advertisers – advertisers care.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
8mo ago
I wouldn't be surprised if switching to 1-mile time as the sole criteria of admissions would select more strongly for IQ than the current system.
You think a system based on mile time would select more strongly for IQ than a system based on test scores and GPA?
Could you make that argument, because that seems prima facie crazy to me.
This was very unexpected to me. The last time somebody was modded for saying "trannies" was more than a year ago, despite many people having used the word.
Moreover just 7 days ago the @self_made_human said (while mod-hatted)
I don't even particularly care that you call them trannies, I'm not one to police vocabulary where the word is entirely synonymous with more polite equivalents, even if it's pejorative.
(To be clear, I like the "write like everyone is reading" rule and wish it were actually enforced, and do think using pejorative is just needless heat. I'm just surprised there's a mod who actually seems to agree)
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
4mo ago
Either you care about white people, their bio-diversity, history and continued existence or you don't.
There are many, many people who care about white people who aren't "white nationalist".
Reading Sotomayors and Jackson’s dissents all I can think is: “this is an excellent example of why affirmative action needs to be banned”
A post that is 100% culture warring, and booing outgroup scores (+44/-5) and has no mod action. If the majority of readers here want to read posts that dunk on leftists, then they should expect to run out of leftists to dunk on.
Either we all need to spontaneously coordinate and suppress our base instincts, the mods need to start cracking down on culture warring (as distinct from analysis, which is what the Culture War thread is purportedly for), or we all need to make peace with the fact that our community has exactly the amount of ideological diversity that we deserve.
Edit: previous discussion
I don’t think your explanations contradict the mod-hating of your irrespective (?) comments.
I do think your explanations contradict each other’s explanations. I expect if a post that calls people trannies and also makes the 10,000th run-of-the-mill advocacy for conservative values, @raggedy_anthem will mod it and you will not.
That’s fine, I’m not looking for perfect consistency between mods, I was just remarking that this seems like a change in direction to our moderation.
As somebody who thinks it’s mind numbingly obvious “the foundation” has only eroded since we were founded, I’m just happy there’s a mod willing to up civility standards, since I’ve long been clear that I think that’s a requirement for the foundation, since shit-flinging is detrimental to minority views.
Plenty of female-oriented degrees such as psychology, behavioral science, speech pathology, etc. require a Masters in order to really start working in the field. Seemingly, most of the people who study those majors just aren't aware of this.
I'm unsure whether these women just haven't googled the most basic facts of the career they'll spend their next 4-6 years pursuing, or whether they're semi-deliberately deluding themselves.
Do you have any statistics here? It looks like 82% of men and 70% of women are employed full time after college, and 3% of both are unemployed, so it's weird how gendered you're choosing to frame this. In my personal experience, suppressing/repressing your future after college is quite common and pretty ungendered.
I consider TheMotte overall alt-right.
Interesting. Our foundation is supposed to be
to be a working discussion ground for people who may hold dramatically different beliefs.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
8mo ago
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
8mo ago
Most people have never heard of Nash equilibrium, let alone understand what a stable Nash equilibrium is. Most people who choose red are just trying to act selfishly and most people choosing blue are just trying to act altruistically, which means it's crazy to argue that one action is correct or incorrect using game theory -- the vast majority of actors are not rational!
"Everyone just choose red" is not a tenable solution in the real world.
I completely agree that you (and most mods here) strongly value free speech. I think that explains why their moderation serves two masters, rather than the single foundation that they're supposed to serve.
The purpose of this community is to be a working discussion ground for people who may hold dramatically different beliefs.
...
All of the community's rules must be justified by this foundation.
If the purpose of TheMotte was to be a place where the English and the Irish can have peaceful discussions, there's no reason to let the English call the Irish "Micks". It's completely unnecessary to discuss any meaningful ideas and only serves to increase tension. If you do allow it then you are sacrificing your purported mission for some other value (e.g. free speech). If you start with 80% English and two years later you have 95% English I think it would be fair to ask why you're still letting the English call the Irish "Micks" when you say you want to encourage peaceful discussion.
Free Speech is cool. There are other communities that prioritize free speech and I have nothing against them. But in this community our purported foundation is not "Free Speech", so "I strongly value free speech" is not a valid justification for a moderation decision.
Given that our terminal value is purportedly fixed, Free Speech is merely one tool to achieve it, so I ask: how is this specific usage of Free Speech (allowing people to use slurs) helping us achieve our terminal value?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
1mo ago
princess Kate announced that she has cancer. for some reason it was such an important secret that she first released a doctored photo of her with her kids
God I hate celebrity gossip. Imagine not knowing how tell your kids you have cancer while your 10-year-old reads rumors that his dad is having an affair, that his parents are getting divorced, and that his mom has an eating disorder.
mass shooting in a Russian concert hall. the US embassy was warning about an attack a couple of weeks ago. ukrainians, islamists, false flag, some other mystery group?
The Islamic State claimed responsibility and US intelligence confirmed it.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
4mo ago
While it'd be nice if throwing money at people decreased the crime rate, I think the strongest defense of welfare has always been that it improves the lives of the people receiving the money -- strong both in the sense that it's pretty self-evidently true, and in the (dark art's / practical) sense that the only real way to fight against the argument is to come out and say you don't care about poor people's wellbeing (which most people don't really want to do).
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
9mo ago
You think condemning his kid to Hell would have caused less conflict?
Allowing his kid to be baptized was the path of least conflict, so I think it's wholly appropriate to be annoyed when the other party insists on causing more conflict, rather than returning the favor.
Whether or not your spouse is committed to raising your kids Christian is a private conversation. Your spouse mouthing some words because she knows a tradition is important to you is not a substitute for that.
Interpreting “Low effort” as "short" is the most trivial way to enforce the rule and so it’s the way the mods are the most likely to enforce it. This isn't necessarily saying the mods are lazy -- more like every mod decision gets judged by the court of public opinion and mods are more likely to enforce a rule if the ruling seems uncontroversial.
Write 50 words of low effort and get slapped. Write 150 words and you don’t have to worry about arguing in good faith or being truthful because enforcing those rules requires making a judgement call.
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
3mo ago
I'll repost my comment from two years ago. None of this is meant to be a bible. This is one approach
In the midwest I got a disproportionate amount of attention on Tinder (vs other apps). In the Bay my tinder match rate is lower but my Hinge match rate is higher (despite identical pictures). Moral of the story: the best app for you depends on different factors, including location; try every app at least once per locale.
In the midwest my match rate on tinder was awful when I used bad photos and great when I used better photos. My current photos are: a picture of me on a ski trip, a picture of me shirtless (tripod), a (bad-quality) picture of me in New Zealand, a picture of me reading (tripod), a (bad quality) picture of me hiking, and a picture of me playing the piano (tripod)
Some random tidbits I've picked up from a few months of online dating:
-
A surprising number of people (including women) think it's bad for me to have the ski-trip picture because you can't see my face. It's important to have some pictures where your face is clear, but absolutely not required for all of them.
-
TAKE LOTS OF PICTURES and only post the best. This is completely normal and not dishonest – women do this all the time. (Side note: I've never been catfished – I'm increasingly convince that most men who claim to have been catfished simply don't appreciate that women strategically select photos – if you can't tell if she's fat... well, there's a reason she isn't making it obvious)
-
If you're going to use a shirtless pic, do it immediately after running or lifting. Again: take many pictures with many different types of lighting.
-
Buy a tripod. It also helps to be confident/mature/social enough to ask a friend take pictures, but a tripod can be more comfortable than asking a friend to take 100 shirtless pictures. Avoid selfies.
-
Every picture should be in a different location. (though I have two pictures in the same building, but you can't tell). Multiple pictures from the same location suggest your pool of "interesting hobbies/events" is small. Yes, your profile is a highlight reel, but you need to leave the impression that there is plenty more you could have chosen from.
-
Don't put your height unless it helps sell you (this is probably around either 5'11" or 6 ft)
-
Dogs are good; cats are mixed (I haven't tried either, but iirc this is from OKCupid)
-
I think many nerds really hate the idea of presenting a false version of themselves, but normal people (including the people you match with) will overwhelmingly not consider posting (e.g.) vacation highlights or flattering angles to be misleading – it's just (unfortunately) part of the game. Part of using OLD apps for me was letting go of my pride – I had spent my whole life never overselling myself and getting by just fine because I was top of my class, etc. That kind of honesty is, unfortunately, not compatible with dating apps. It's worth noting that if you're underselling yourself compared to others, that's also a kind of dishonestly.
-
It may be helpful to know that probably half the reason you're not getting many matches isn't because women are rejecting you, but simply because women don't swipe (in either direction) nearly as much as men. To this end buying super swipes can be helpful (I did this before I re-ramped my profiles). For most people on this sub, $500 on dating apps in exchange for 40 years of happiness is cheap at twice the price.
-
If you think your hair doesn't look attractive, you're probably right (compare my first picture to my other two; I'm no top 2%, but at least I'm not bottom 50%). If you think your clothes don't look attractive, you're probably right. If you think your glasses don't look attractive, you're probably right. Trust your intuition. I'm a nerd interested in Lotr and statistics, who majored in math and CS, and spent my entire time as a student wearing t shirts. I still know unattractive when I see it (on me).
-
A great, customized opening message and an average, canned opener probably aren't that different in terms of response rate. Response rate (after matching) is basically ~50% for me no matter what, so I usually just send canned messages. 2 canned messages are better than 1 custom message.
-
If a woman matched with you and is talking to you, she is interested. You don't need to be suave or even have a decent segue to ask for her number or ask her on a date. Just ask "out of the blue" for either (I usually ask for a date then ask for a number to "work out the details"). I usually do this on the 3rd or 4th message (edit: though I usually sent pretty long messages when I was dating. YMMV, this is one approach that worked for me and is intended as an example more than as a bible).
CNBC is reporting that
Notably
The USA's GDP is $20 trillion, so a cost of $220 billion is about 1% of the USA's GDP, which should immediately raise some red flags. Now that something smells fishy, we can look up Qatar's GDP and realize that CNBC is claiming that Qatar has spent at least 120% of their GDP on the World Cup.
Unsurprisingly, we can count on Reuters to set the record straight.
Some Googling also gets us news.sky.com being more explicit
I think it's fair to say that reporting all infrastructure spending in the last decade as "spending on the World Cup infrastructure" is pants-on-fire misleading, particularly when comparing it to the costs other countries paid.
The New York Times does it with a bit more plausible deniability.
Although their tweet is more suspect
But what about that $45 billion stadium (which, incidentally, is greater than Qatar's annual government spending)?
That also seems implausible. No source is cited but, for comparison, Yankee Stadium has 12,000 seats (vs Lusail's 9,000) and cost $2.3 billion (or 5% the alleged cost of Lusail). Also sportingnews.com, while also guilty of running that $220 billion number, helpfully lists the costs of each of the new stadiums and claims Lusail Stadium cost $767 million.
Rough order-of-magnitude verification of numbers is a valuable skill. If I tell you the deepest part of the ocean is 500 miles deep you should really be able to know that I'm wrong (the USA is ~2500 miles wide). You should know if the government spends $1 billion or $50 million on something. Reporting that a country spent $200 billion on a sporting event instantly raise a red flag.
Go play Wits & Wagers.
More options
Context Copy link