domain:mattlakeman.org
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Sorry, I realized that there was one part of my prior comments that could be misinterpreted, so I deleted my comment and redid it. I also posted in haste the first time. I thought I deleted it quickly enough that it wouldn't matter. My apologies.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into.
By all means, bite.
where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.
Here, there is one part of my language that I admit may be ambiguous and possibly misread. The "instantaneous" piece means "the premises necessary for the instantaneous logical chain of implications". Remember, they are explicitly claiming that once you are epsilon past the line, it's not worth even talking about. I take that to mean that instantaneously, in that moment, the entire logical chain of the slippery slope has been instantiated, and the conversation is over. I do not mean to imply that they think that innovation, itself, actually stops instantaneously. But they do actually mean that, in that moment, instantaneously, the game is over, the logic is iron-clad, the implications flow immediately, and the only conclusion is absolute death. That absolute death may take some time to culminate, in my understanding of their view, but that it is absolutely inevitable is instantaneously concludable from the moment that you cross over the epsilon regulation mark.
I have never done this. Stop lying about what I've done.
I can concede a misunderstanding, but then I'm confused why are you criticizing them for bad arguments, if that's not an implicit demand to bring better ones (as the ones outlined in your examples)
I never said that they claimed that it was instantaneous. Stop lying about what I've said.
A quote from you:
but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim
So it seems you are, again, accusing others of what you do yourself.
pigeonburger
1hr ago
Desperately try to get back in a sexy mood by thinking of literally anything but Ted Cruz.
ControlsFreak
1hr ago
Because not all slippery slopes logically entail exactly whatever anyone can just throw out there as a possible conclusion? So, perhaps, you're throwing out "death of innovation" as the end of the slope, but that's actually akin to "dog marriage". And someone else might throw out a different possibility as the end of the slope, and that's akin to trans stuff. A reasonable conversation can be had about the connection between gay marriage and those two different possible end points, just like a reasonable conversation can be had here about this regulation and different possible end points. You would simply terminate the conversation immediately and conclude that it must be dog marriage/death of innovation. This seems like a pretty obvious non sequitur, a conversation killer, a mind killer, and the enemy of rational discussion.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
You have opened with sneers, the relevant fragments were already quoted to you. I never said you should put forward a complete framework. Much like you are demanding of others and are refusing to give yourself, I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into. You have baited people into a low-quality pissing contest, and are acting upset that they took the bait.
I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately.
Again: where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.
Poultice
2hr ago
I mentioned this to someone at work the other day and they looked at me as if I were crazy. The idea that the two were in anyway related (I even specifically limited it to fast food/take out costs) was inconceivable to him, he had a whole bunch of alternative theories.
ControlsFreak
2hr ago
I started by opening the conversation to a variety of perspectives on the issue at hand and an observation on the culture war component of it. I did not claim to endeavor to present a complete framework, nor has anyone even asked me to. When folks have wanted to have interesting discussions on particulars, I've engaged, and it's been fruitful. Full of details. Plenty of information about my position. I haven't even asked for a full and complete framework from anyone; even just a little attempt at talking about types of slippery slopes and such would be fine, but what I've gotten in return is literally on the level of, "Gay marriage, slippery slope, dog marriage, QED." Thinking that we can mayyyyybe do a tiny bit better than that in thinking about a framework for understanding slippery slopes is not a demand for a complete and total theory. It's a request to even try.
I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately. Nor have I once demanded that they get mine exactly right. It is entirely a mess that they have created. Perhaps they viewed my observation of the culture war component as a sneer, got personally offended, and lost all capacity for rational argumentation, and I could be partially blamed for that. In that case, I would suggest that you focus on what part of my observation of the culture war component was wrong, for just because it was interpreted as a sneer and caused offense does not mean that was not true and necessary.
RegularlyExpressed
2hr ago
My annoyance with some of the other issues here aside, what exactly do they imagine is to be done about the supposed epidemic of women being targeted for violence by men? Is there really a generalized belief that the problem is insufficient scolding or insufficient laws targeting this variety of crime?
It makes sense if you hold to the belief in strict blank-slateism.
Let's say you were in charge of fixing this from the advertising side of things.
I guess manufacturers are in a tough position there because the lower level of knowledge means that quite uncomfortable things have to be put on the packaging. They can get away with putting the warnings in the 100 page manual for the toaster; it would put off buyers if the toaster they were looking at proeminently displayed "This toasted WILL kill you if you plug it in and take it for a bath!". Similarly, a baby monitor whose box said something like "Unless properly secured, this monitor can allow strangers to connect and listen in or talk to your child" will find itself selling less than the one that omits it.
I suppose the best move is to spin it as a feature. Put it proudly on the box! "Crowdsource your child's safety with the default password mode!"
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
2hr ago
Gay marriage was on a slippery slope down to all the trans stuff we have today. I don't know if the slope ends before dog marriage. Not sure what that has to do with a regulatory framework being a slippery slope towards the death of innovation.
ControlsFreak
2hr ago
Ok, so once we're epsilon onto a slippery slope, you're "not going to argue about the specifics". Got it. So, you could just respond to those comments by explicitly stating this, yes?
Do you hold this position for all possible claims of slippery slopes? Do you agree that gay marriage is just one more spot on the slippery slope to marrying dogs, and any argumentation about specifics is somewhere between fruitless and an entirely misguided endeavor? Or do you think there is room to discuss some sort of framework for claims of slippery slopes, that perhaps all slopes might not be equally slippery, or something along these lines? Or just nah to all that. "Gay marriage, slippery slope, dog marriage, QED." ?
DradisPing
2hr ago
If you want more influence from me, you need to explain what it is you are trying to accomplish.
Now, to be fair, I don't see myself as likely to be convinced in any case
EDIT: Why is this getting downvoted so much?
Here's the situation. You're making demands without being in a position to demand anything. They don't care about your influence, and you aren't really offering it.
You're just standing there and screaming that you will define the null hypothesis and they are obligated to debate you according to your rules.
Have a look at this article, and notice the bit on "floating signifiers" https://status451.com/2017/07/11/radical-book-club-the-decentralized-left/
If you want to have any hope of advancing your argument, you do need to work out some of these details. Some other extremists, like anarcho-capitalists for example, I find to be actually quite good at working out these details.
AnCaps aren't anyone's example of a successful movement.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
We're having a nice conversation here about the regulation in question. That is a good way of having a discussion about having non-zero regulation, but hopefully not too much of it
As interesting as that conversation is, I don't see how it's relevant to my arguments.
One could even go after a "framework for analyzing", even in slippery slope situations. Here's a good example of how to construct such a framework (...)
But they're still refusing to have any sort of framework, discuss any sort of specifics, nothing.
And they're 100% correct to do so. Again, you opened with sneers, no framework of your own, and only vague hints at your own position. Much like you misrepresented your opponents views, while demanding they get yours exactly right, you seem to be demanding a higher standard then you're setting for yourself. I don't think it's a "mess the other guys are doing", you are a significant part of it.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
Why is that certain?
Nothing is certain, but I'd say it's a very good bet. I'm pretty sure getting the public to comply with a draft requires more social trust than, in the words of the economist, "getting credit cards to work".
2rafa
2hr ago
will burn New York City and DC down simultaneously
Why is that certain? This is a community that has a high rate of general crime, but is otherwise highly atomized. They have been drafted before. Most are very much apolitical. Drafting would likely only happen in the event of war with China, and they sometimes have a contentious relationship with Asians anyway.
Tollund_Man4
2hr ago
Went to an Irish-language primary school, a Gaelscoil (though I've got terrible Irish these days). We went to church a lot and started every day off with a prayer. The local priest used to come in and give talks and he was very entertaining, he went off to Rome and the next priest wasn't as entertaining but was also a nice fellow. There was a big focus on music which I unfortunately didn't take advantage of so I just did the mandatory tin-whistle playing and singing (the whole class was a church choir). Sports were soccer, handball and (not competitively) rounders though almost everyone was involved in GAA outside of school, I never got the hang of a hurl so I stuck to handball. Nearly all the teachers were female, there were three very strict ones I didn't like and the rest were very friendly. For the final two years we got a male teacher and he was well liked by everyone, our rowdy stage hit around age 12 and we eventually betrayed him on the last day of school by pretending one kid was hurt and showering the teacher in water when he ran over to help.
My main trouble was not having the in-group status most of the other kids shared, I'm Irish but everyone's else's family knew and lived beside everyone else's family for decades and my parents not being locals meant I had to hang out with the Welsh kid, the Scottish kid and the slow kid from Kerry.
I enjoyed secondary school too but it was very different, I'll have to get back and finish this later.
RegularlyExpressed
3hr ago
A related matter - youtuber argues that ranking women's attractiveness upsets the Byzantine system of female intrasexual competition, where every queen is praised as a 10/10 regardless of ugliness. I found the video pretty decent albeit a few minutes longer than it needed to be. It features the infamous Gorlock the Destroyer claiming to be a 10/10 (sarcastically?), which does make you think. There might be something to it - ranking women by attractiveness seems more dangerous than one might naively imagine.
In the male-dominated patriarchal society of the distant past, accusing men of being bastards or having incorrect lineage was a very serious matter. Legitimacy and preventing cuckoldry was deeply important to men, it informed the whole structure of European politics, inheritance and succession. Perhaps in the emerging future it's female sexual dynamics that will take priority and we'll see more of this kind of thing.
I'm not sure it's as complicated as that. Observing girls from a distance and sexually commenting on them is pretty archetypical "creep" behaviour in most people's minds. You could remove the ranking element - these guys could have been compiling a list of all the girls who they fantasise over and dream of naked - and the reaction would still probably have been "eww" from most of the girls involved (unless the guys were particularly good-looking or had high social status). Throw in the concept of some of these girls being "un/rapable", the dominance of progressive ideology in schools and the media, how easily this can be framed in terms of the widespread panic about the influence of people like Tate, and maybe a slow news week, and I'm not surprised this event got picked up in the media.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
3hr ago
I guess I had an happy childhood and my schooling was fine. I went to a local primary school, close enough to home that I could walk to school every day (including walking back home for lunch). My mother was working part time while I was in primary school, so she could be home on most days for my lunch and when I came back from school. In 6th grade I had the option to take a special program of intensive english, but opted not to because I figured my english was already way above average for my age (I was close to bilingual then, thanks to exposure to english language media). For secondary school I followed in the footstep of my brother and went to an elite International Bachelorate affiliated magnet school. I did fairly well in my first year there, but after my grades went steadily down as I figured out I was able to just coast by with no effort. I stopped doing homework past what I was absolutely forced to, stopped studying for exams, barely paid attention in class. I'd read my textbooks and that's pretty much it. By the end I was barely passing. Teachers didn't seem to mind because I was passing, when they checked up on me it seemed as if I didn't need help and I wasn't bothering anyone. My parents were concerned by my grades, but again, I wasn't a problem child or teen in any way. I'd say my teachers were for the most part very competent. I always managed to find peer groups to hang out with; in the first year of high school with people coming from different cities and with fixed groups through every class, I ended up hanging out with a quite random group of people, but as things settled, I found myself hanging out with groups that were neither losers nor winners in the social hierarchy. It's important to note that due to this being a "gifted" kid school, the social hierarchy was a bit different; everyone was a form of nerd to begin with, even the "jocks".
Anyway, as that ended and I went to college, I quickly found that I was overprepared by that school for college, exams and classes that people from "normal" schools found tough in college were at a level I had already done in high school. This had a perverse effect in that it lowered the effort I was willing to put in even more, to the point where I wasn't showing up to classes any more, I was even missing exams and ended up just dropped out of college. Turned out that was a good decision, I managed to build myself a career out of the IT skills I had build in my free time, when I was supposed to be studying.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
3hr ago
The draft not working very well in Vietnam was why we got rid of it, though.
We got rid of it because we withdrew from Vietnam
Jiro
3hr ago
The government isn't going to find the security holes and report them; they're going to find the security holes, report a couple, and save the rest for their own use.
hydroacetylene
3hr ago
The draft not working very well in Vietnam was why we got rid of it, though.
You can have broad based conscription(WWII), you can have hyper-limited conscription of ne’erdowells and people who opted in(GWOT featured a lot of troops who did not particularly want to be in the military), you can’t thread the needle.
I did not enjoy my childhood, but school was at most a minor contributing factor to the suck.
I went to Catholic schools for 12 years. Education was generally very high quality, except for religion specific classes which varied from a grandma rambling about how daily mass is important to her all the way to a hippie introducing us to whatever woo and pop psychology seemed appropriate. This on more than one occasion included a guest lecture from an ancient astronaut theorist, but it more frequently was ‘sit in a circle and talk about what myers-brigs does in your faith life’. Plenty of teachers just gave a final essay(‘pick a sacrament’ ‘history lesson on X in the church’) and had us watch something unobjectionable(movies about saints were common) for half the semester, with a talk about considering the religious life sprinkled in.
My peers were a broad cross section of the population; the überreligious Catholics whose parents felt incompetent to homeschool were there, but generally eyepoppingly wealthy because tuition for that many kids ain’t cheap. There were ghetto kids recruited for sports, but most people were normal suburbanites who probably went to church but expected not to worry about it until next Sunday. I don’t recall bullying being a serious issue; certainly I heard about a case or two of it, but I never saw any. Rules were general enforced very strictly and behavior tended to be just a bit better as a result.
My parents were very involved in my schooling, and no other part of my life. Until I had a nervous breakdown resulting in hospitalization my senior year, my mother woke me up every night to scream about the need for higher grades. What my grades actually were did not affect this except for the possibility of them being used as evidence.
You're trying to use "rational discussion" as a cudgel to get people to accept your conclusion that a regulatory framework is a good idea and the rational thing to do is argue over the details. And you're doing it clumsily.
More options
Context Copy link