Jiro
9hr ago
In theory, you could believe that one vaccine works independently of the others. In practice, not so much.
Jiro
16hr ago
99% of the time, critics of the vaccine are anti-vaxxers. Weird rationalists are weird.
I can sort of see what tea leaves you're gesturing to. I just don't know what you mean exactly.
This is a tactic that allows mottes and baileys and is why we talk about speaking plainly. If he were to post that the vaccine is dangerous, it could be rebutted.
The main thing that distinguishes that from a troll post is that there is a lot of Covid skepticism here that he could be trying to appeal to, but the skepticism here is about lockdowns and the political handling of Covid, which is only his point 1. Everyone here (minus the lizardman constant) thinks vaccines work.
Jiro
1d ago
You may be aware of tariff shenanigans like coating sneakers in a layer of felt so that they count as slippers, adding flimsy temporary seats to cargo vans so that they count as passenger vans
Couldn't that be stopped with some language such as "products are classified based on their primary use"? If most people remove the felt or the seats, they then wouldn't count.
Jiro
1d ago
the foundation’s often bewilderingly destructive actions result from its complete faith in the superiority of liberal technocratic expertise to engineer a more perfect society from the top down.
Isn't wanting to engineer a perfect society from the top down, basically a Marxoid cabal by definition?
Jiro
4d ago
James spader’s character turns out to be a woman?
It isn't in the Wikipedia article.
Jiro
4d ago
If your family and friends were allied with Nazi Germany, you really should betray them and work for your country instead.
Jiro
4d ago
If Michelin-star restaurants are your requirement for "high quality food", then most people don't, and cannot eat high quality food most of the time they eat.
On the other hand, "the evidence presented by my enemies was adversarially selected" is a fully general counterargument.
Not really. It's just a fully general reason to reduce your confidence in the evidence (combined with rejecting evidence beneath a certain threshold). Your confidence may be reduced and there could still be enough left to believe it.
If someone says "I robbed the First National Bank at 11 AM on Tuesday", even if it's reported by your enemies, the fact that it's adversarily selected doesn't matter much, because it's hard to take that statement out of context without lying. (Things like "that's actually from a roleplaying game" are considered lies by normies.)
This is related to the discussion above as to why to believe the DHS when it says things about the immigrants it catches. For one thing, even an adversarial selector is believable if they say "this man was wanted for assault". They'll rarely lie and that's hard to take out of context.
Jiro
5d ago
Because the point there is...
There is no point there. But the reader is left to infer one. Of course, she can deny the reader's inferred point at any time when it gets inconvenient.
This is why people are asked to speak plainly.
Jiro
5d ago
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu
You just did exactly this to James Watson. You have no right to complain about it.
Most of them are basically inconclusive; there are atrocities claimed that have no evidence for them, and DHS says the situation is some other way which also cannot be confirmed.
I'm not even convinced of this. Things like "this man is wanted for assault" and "was wielding a hammer and threw rocks" are things that could be verified. Maybe not immediately, but they can.
Very often the "atrocity" side is making highly emotive claims that aren't even really atrocities if you turn on your brain for a second or so
Of course, this factor is probably more important. The anti-immigrant side of these stories is obviously mostly or all spin even without having to decide whether the government was lying.
Jiro
6d ago
Except we recently had a government that literally lied on the facts - the Hunter Biden Laptop story is one such situation.
Like the media rarely lying, the government rarely lies. This was one of the rarelys. But even with a media that was mostly friendly to the government, there were significant sources questioning the government. If the DHS was lying here, the media would be going through the DHS's claims one by one and talking about how each one is a lie. The fact that that hasn't happened is a good sign that the DHS is telling the truth.
Also, the Hunter Biden laptop is one story. It would not be possible for the government to keep up a series of lies, one for every single immigrant arrest story.
Jiro
7d ago
My point was the opposite of this. You don't have to "believe the government" at all except to the extent of accepting that they'll say literal truths, which is a very low standard and is something that applies to the other side too.
I fully expect that with the next Democrat in the White House the government will still say things that are literally true.
My question is mostly, is it normal for the Red Tribe to believe the "official story" over their "lying eyes?"
The Department of Homeland Security is obviously biased in favor of themselves, but just like the media lying, you'd expect any factual statements they make to be correct. If they say that the guy has been previously arrested for assault, then you can bet that the guy has actually been previously arrested for assault. If that was a lie, then first of all the left would pounce on that and tell everyone that it's a lie, and second, the DHS would know this and not lie in the first place. If it's truthful, the left would be silent about it.
If the DHS had instead posted "Chicago residents say the man had been arrested for assault" you would be right to be skeptical.
Jiro
7d ago
we don't know how many people who didn't know that specific man and read the story inferred the story was about some other poor sap who had nothing to do with the story.
"What is inferred by people who don't know him" is a bad standard--she could have used his real name and address and people who don't know him still wouldn't know it's about him.
And most of the harm would come from the reactions of the people who do know him, anyway.
This one's an edge case where it's hard for me to imagine how I could lie to the Nazis,
I was thinking of the scenario where you voluntarily and directly reported a Jew to the Nazis. Under the standard "it's the fault of the person who reacts, not the fault of the person who provides the information" it wouldn't matter whether you provided the information voluntarily and directly.
Jiro
7d ago
That's like Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The actions of the character are so extreme that nobody would understand that book to mean that the real person actually did those things.
definitely the best book titled "My Struggle" ever written
To be fair, being better than the most famous book by this name is pretty easy.
Jiro
7d ago
Let's consider her position. She writes a story loosely based on a person she briefly knew, changing most of the key details of the interaction to fit her fictional narrative.
From the description, she didn't change the key details. The details that identify him were kept. The details that she changed were the ones that now said that he did horrible things.
To whatever extent someone's predictable reaction is unjust, I place the blame on the person reacting in the unjustified manner.
That's a fair point,. so I'll change it: if it's predictable that people would react badly towards someone else (and only someone else), particularly when it's someone you're hostile towards, you're responsible. It may be worse the more reasonable the response is, but most cases I can think of don't even need to get that far.
By your reasoning, there's no need to change any details; she could have made it exactly describe the guy and as long as she said it was fiction, it would be the fault of the people reading. By your reasoning, I could say that there's a party on your lawn this weekend and if anyone comes and messes up your lawn, I have no responsibility. In fact, I could make a false police report about you committing an actual crime and as long as I've put some details in that the police could theoretically check before arresting you, it's not my fault if you get arrested. Or if you're Jewish I could report you to the Nazis--I've only given them truthful information, it's the Nazis' fault if they then decide to kill you based on it.
Jiro
8d ago
Any inference about actual reality and real humans living within it based on the text that she put down was something voluntarily done entirely by the reader.
Yes, that's something done by the reader, but that doesn't mean she has no responsibility--she wrote things in such a way that how the readers would interpret it was completely predictable.
Certainly, it's possible that this author was playing some 4D chess to libel this innocent man via plausibly deniable means? It's just not in evidence,
If she didn't do it on purpose, she was reckless enough that she bears pretty much the same moral responsibility as if she did it on purpose.
If he does not emerge from the room with the object you intend to sell, your patent is denied.
You would not allow a patent on part of a large industrial process?
For software parents, if your patent doesn't compile using what ever compiler you submitted in the application your patent is denied.
That's not a bad idea (since that part does get gamed) but that's not the real problem with software patents. The actual problem is that people can patent things that are obvious by ordinary standards, but either so obvious that nobody would bother documenting prior art, or only useful when computer technology reaches a certain point, so there is a first person to do it even though it's obvious.
If you hold the (entirely mainstream on the right) viewpoint that people who self-define as hyphenated-Americans should be excluded from positions of power and influence, deciding that this applies to people who act like Israeli-Americans is a matter of Noticing things.
Self-define is not act like. It's the difference between "they proudly call themselves a Nazi" and "they're on the right, so their policies are Nazi-like, so they're a Nazi".
Exactly how does that reasoning not apply to veterans too?
More options
Context Copy link