domain:ymeskhout.substack.com
Corvos
17m ago
First thought: 'Oh, hey, I can understand this!'
Second thought: 'Oh, Christ, I can understand this.'
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
25m ago
I think the vibes of applying civil rights law to "white people" have changed drastically since the 1980s. Certainly not unanimously, but witness the Trump administration's consideration of refugee status for white South Africans (I'm going to choose not to express an opinion on that at this time).
But there have IIRC been a few instances of academic conferences having to walk back "International submissions encouraged. Israeli academics need not apply."
roystgnr
26m ago
it’s still “no evidence” in a statistical sense
In a statistical sense, saying "datum D is no evidence for theory T" is "P(T|D) = P(D)". Here we have "P(T|D) > P(D)", which is "D is evidence".
It's not much evidence. It's not nearly enough evidence. It's outweighed by other evidence to the contrary. It's grossly outweighed by reasonable priors. But it's still evidence.
I hate to pick on anti-Trump folks about this, when Trump's own relationship with truth seems to intersect propositional logic only by random luck; forget about Bayesian statistics. But it's still a red flag to me.
Decades ago I waded into investigation of a controversial belief system, a "religion" or a "cult" depending on who you asked. I debated with folks about evidence for and evidence against many of the beliefs, and my eventual conclusion was basically "false religion" ... but the most memorable part of those discussions was, when one guy I'd been debating with was asked by another interlocutor whether there was any evidence against his religion, his answer was a flat "no". Not "yes, but there's more evidence for it", not "yes, but only if you consider evidence out of context", just "no, there's no evidence against it".
I still had lingering questions (of what I'd later start thinking of as "epistemic rationality") to resolve, but now more pragmatic ("instrumentally rational") concerns were screaming at me to be wary in a way that continuing abstract discussion of science or history couldn't have done. It might not have been his religious leaders' fault, but that guy was in a cult.
Such self-inflicted damage isn't worth it for any ideology. You might still end up at a correct belief, or a dozen, but only by random luck.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
30m ago
If you want to see this in action, the political arguments are practically reversed on the issue of the "Muslim ban" in Trump's first term: that one even included North Korea! IIRC the administration at the time claimed it was based on security cooperation agreements and just happened to hit mostly Muslim nations (but not all such nations) with poor recordkeeping.
I'm not sure I'm happy with that one either, for the record.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
33m ago
Knowledge of noun cases is bourgeois. You would be wise to forget it, comrade.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
36m ago
Yes, because if the judges don't bellyfeel it, they won't make a useful ruling. Yes, the conservatives on the Supreme Court believe as an intellectual matter that anti-discrimination rules cut both ways and disallow discrimination against whites. But in their gut they know it's all about helping blacks and think that's the right thing, so they make sure to leave a hole any time they make a ruling against discriminating against other races. When it comes to Jews, though, their belly is firmly in line with anti-discrimination.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
40m ago
Note that they've removed this already. It appears they've been adding the same anti-BDS language to various grant proposals; I would guess it's a result of pressure from the State Department, since Rubio is known to be strongly anti-BDS.
Even Judas Priest wasn't metal until their second album, the 1976 Sad Wings of Destiny. That's six years between Black Sabbath releasing Paranoid and Judas Priest doing anything that could be called metal. I think much of it is Black Sabbath's influence being so ubiquituous in metal that people don't realize that it's all taken straight from Black Sabbath. Things like heavy power chord riffing, ubiquituous use of tritone as integral part of the riffs / melody, Geezer Butler's bass playing, down tuning etc.
It's a bit like people claiming The Beatles weren't that influential without realizing that the very concept of a rock band as we know it is based on their template.
More options
Context Copy link