stoatherd
30d ago
That's reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
I want to record some general observations — they're not specifically about mkc, but obviously the context of this interaction is going to be read into them.
- There are corrosive patterns of behaviour that exist below the level that most people would want to report, or that would generally be modded. For example, repeatedly and egregiously lying about what other comments have said.
This is difficult to mod. Some people are going to call it "subjective" — I disagree, but there's a grey zone. Modding this too heavily is going to cross into tone policing, or outlawing people just misunderstanding each other. It's reasonable to err on the side of not modding this.
But it's still corrosive! Consider this exchange:
ALICE: Water is poisonous. BOB: Water isn't poisonous. Maybe you're confused about "dihydrogen monoxide" [insert effortpost] ALICE: if you're confused about the existence about poisons, I recommend this link. Obviously water itself isn't poisonous (idiot). If you're imagining that poisons can't be dissolved in water, I'm prepared to prove you wrong on that stupid position.
In this situation: does Bob report Alice? I don't think so. Maybe it's worth putting in more effort to point out the bullshit Alice has just pulled by lying.
But multiplied across many interactions... Alice can keep lying with zero effort, while the truth has to put in tons of effort to constantly correct the record.
If that's the recommended paradigm (I'm uncertain to what extent you endorse this), then backseat modding is kinda an implicit pillar of this ecosystem. People have to keep putting in effort to point out "no, you just lied — you said X earlier, and now you're pretending you said Y".
I'm aware that this gets under my skin. I'm correct to get really, really annoyed by this. I don't care if a person is a rightist, a leftist, or whatever — I care when they lie in a way that's easily disprovable by looking at the transcript, but that the average Motte reader wouldn't bother to go and read.
The correct behaviour is for me not to respond to this by flipping out, as I did in your link.
... but it's also a problem that someone keeps lying so much that they make someone flip out. You don't actually need to have a long list of shit posters who aggravate you.
I'm not proposing banning anyone for being annoying, or for having the wrong politics (that would be insane). I just want to register that there's this middle ground where disingenuous people can DDOS the Motte with truth-agnostic comments without any kind of restriction or punishment, so long as they stay below the level where they'll get actively modded.
I don't know the solution, I just don't think the current situation is... eh.
stoatherd
30d ago
All I can do is give some hypotheticals, which is If we assume this recent statement is true from Vance because we assume he isn't lying to our faces
That isn't what you did.
I can't tell you which way is which cause I don't know
Then say that up front, instead of pretending.
Thus within this hypothetical
Your original comment had nothing to do with hypotheticals.
If people want to explore the alternative assumption where Vance is lying
People want to explore the alternative timeline where you say what you mean.
You think it's cute when you go "oh, you disagree with my unflattering framing X? Well, if you want to explore even-less-flattering-framing-Y, go ahead!"
The problem is that this hinges on everyone around you being stupid.
You are being criticised for obfuscating your position to try and head off specific criticism.
No one is saying "hey, you're being too charitable when you said Vance isn't a horrible liar!"
Please stop pretending that the latter is the case.
What they shouldn't do is blame their inability to properly read on me proposing a hypothetical
You are lying.
You did not propose a hypothetical.
Stop blaming people for not reading something you did not write.
stoatherd
30d ago
I apologise for what comes across as backseat modding — I don't agree with the characterisation, but it's a reasonable one, and I might be wrong.
I don't agree that pointing this out contributes to the degradation of the Motte.
I didn't think that mkc's comment was bad enough to warrant reporting. I thought about it, but that seemed petty and wrong. If I'm wrong about that, I'd welcome the correction.
Here is the actual guideline at the top
Yes, I read this. I figured the additional context weighed in favour of pointing out the rules violation, not like some gotcha that I'd missed.
This applies to, for example, pretending you are arguing one thing when you're actually arguing something else, or implying something that is so unclear so as to invite confusion or misunderstanding
This is exactly what mkc is doing. My comments explain how.
If I'm backseat modding: fair. Ding me for that.
But I literally explain how mkc is deliberately avoiding holding a stance so that it's impossible to debate him.
I don't think that deserves a ban or anything, so I didn't report it. But if the rule is I can't even point that out, then that's a bad rule. And I don't think that is the rule.
I don't have an issue with mkc being annoying. I'm annoying!
I want him to commit to a position so we can discuss it.
You know what also contributes to the degradation of the Motte? You losing your temper with someone who seems to get under your skin
Yes, I correctly received a ban for this, and said so at the time.
Given that we agree on this, I'm not sure it's relevant to what we're talking about now.
If your position is that I'm doing the same thing again, which I don't think it is, then that would be relevant.
stoatherd
30d ago
You are demanding the impossible, I can not know what is and isn't truthful in Vance's statements.
No one was asking for that.
No one even remotely hinted at asking for that.
I asked you to state what you believe.
You are the only person who finds that to be an insurmountable burden, or who deliberately conflates it with being asked for a perfect factual assessment of the world.
Stop lying.
I will not make bold claims like "Vance is definitely lying" when I can not know that
No one asked you to.
if we assume Vance is being truthful
That's not what you did.
You stated, while making the patented magicalkittycat ":3" face, that Vance was being truthful.
My entire point is requesting that you cut out this bullshit, and do the thing you just pretended you were doing all along. If you want to construct a hypothetical, construct the hypothetical.
But you don't. You want to dunk on people you think are less intelligent than you, and then pretend you weren't doing it.
I have no idea who you think this onanistic farce is fooling.
"Speak plainly", how about you bother to read instead?
Wish granted: I already read everything you said.
You always say this when you run out of arguments. It's lame. Try speaking plainly instead. Other people don't find it hard.
Again even if we flip the assumption around and observe the hypothetical where he is a liar, it doesn't tell us what parts are a lie and what is truth.
Another masterful exercise in completely ignoring the thing you just quoted.
What are you even doing?
stoatherd
1mo ago
go ahead and do that instead of whining
You are breaking the rules and wasting everyone's time.
Pretending that pointing that out is "whining" is pathetic.
Speak plainly.
You're forced to guess either way.
No, I wouldn't be forced to guess about what you believe if you actually stated what you believe. I wouldn't have to guess, because I would assume you were attempting to honestly represent your beliefs.
If you want to explore the "Vance is lying" hypothetical instead
I want you to be honest and state what you believe. Not just on this, but in general. I want you to make comments where you actually stake out a position that people can discuss, rather than just flinging shit at people you don't like, but in a way where you can't be pinned down on any particular claim, because you veil your claims behind ambiguity, sarcasm, and contempt for people you consider to be less intelligent than you.
These can both coexist!
No, they can't. Not inside the same argument!
Both possibilities here are suspicious.
Then say that. Ideally, pick one possibility, explain why you think it's true, and explain what it would imply.
Or, less ideally, construct a position of "one of these two things must be true", explain why you think that, and explain what each of them would imply.
What's juvenile is to simultaneously push for both being true. "Hey guys, Vance and Trump are pieces of shit and lie all the time. Also, Vance said this thing, and because he said it, it must be true; and, if true, it implies Trump is a paedo".
That's pathetic and contributes to the degradation of the Motte. Why is it so hard to just present a principled position? Why do you insist on marshalling a troop of mutually contradictory ideas-as-soldiers?
stoatherd
1mo ago
Now as we can all assume that just like Trump, Vance would never lie or act irresponsibly in his position at the top level of government so we should take him seriously when he said that Israeli and American intelligence clearly had connections to Epstein.
Actually, no. The rules say "speak plainly".
Stop doing this.
If you believe that Trump and Vance would lie and/or act irresponsibly, say so. Ideally in a substantive, interesting comment that adds to the discussion. Obviously, taking this path would be incompatible with what you want to vaguely but vigorously hint at: something like "Trump is paedophile". If that's an uncharitable distillation, then maybe try speaking plainly so people don't have to guess.
If, on the other hand, you don't think that Trump and Vance would lie and/or act irresponsibly --i.e. you want to disavow the entire smug point of your comment as, well, a lie -- then you can absolutely use Vance's comment as part of a chain of reasoning to connect Trump to Epstein, like you're salivating to do.
You want to have your cake and eat it. You want to simultaneously claim:
- Vance is a liar
- Vance wouldn't lie, therefore Trump paedo
... can you please pick a principled position? You might learn something, if you actually made a single falsifiable claim and tried to honestly discuss it, rather than throwing out a general shitstorm of "my outgroup is bad" without ever committing to a single coherent position.
stoatherd
1mo ago
That just assumes the materialist thesis. Humans aren't computers.
It doesn't assume that -- it rests solely on the idea that brains are physical objects. This is empirically verified by every single experiment run on a human brain. More generally, it's been borne out on every noun that interacts with the physical world.
"Humans aren't computers" is irrelevant. Brains are physical arrangements of atoms that are capable of intelligently solving problems. This assumes nothing.
(For completeness: you may be completely right about 2. You're sort-of-right about 3, in that the assumption was made and the assumption was mistaken. But I don't think you're right that the current approach avoids singularity. There are absolutely recursive feedback loops in improving the current implementation of AI, because improving AI is made out of tasks, and we can get AI to do tasks. But you're right that the original thesis had a much more directly integrated feedback loop.)
stoatherd
1mo ago
If you are unsure about what some public intellectual is saying,
I'm not.
Again, and you keep ignoring this, he explicitly says "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens".
I am not unsure about what he's saying. I've been pretty clear about this. He directly, literally, explicitly states his position. Why are you inventing this idea that I'm unsure what he's saying?
By not being willing to read other things on the topic you are dismissing disclaimers
Dude, I don't know how to explain it to you any more simply than I already did.
I am evaluating what he said in those two posts. I don't have to read a person's entire set of works to criticise specific posts!
This has nothing to do with me "not being willing to read"; you've completely invented that, as you've invented several other positions for me to hold.
Its not just a single "report" like you were describing it
Then blame Hanson, because that's his description: "a U.S. military report says that intelligently controlled UFOs with amazing abilities seem real to them".
I am literally relaying his words, and you keep assigning blame to me for direct quotes from Hanson! If he subsequently found other reports, that's fine; but I'm criticising his post based on the words inside it!
My priors on aliens are not as low as yours. There is nothing physically impossible about aliens existing.
Why do you think my priors are low? The only comment I've made on alien existence is "If aliens exist -- which I think is plausible". Where are you getting "stoatherd has a low prior on aliens?"
I don't know what it would take for you to change your mind on alien likelihood
Evidence.
The aliens don't have to be little green men, or any other hollywood stereotypes.
This is a nice line, but it seems to be from a different argument entirely.
Why do you consider the possibility so infinitesimally low? Is there some physical law you think it is violating?
The possibility of what, exactly? Aliens existing, or aliens specifically interacting with Earth, typically via UFOs?
Why are you inventing yet another position for me, that I consider the possibility (of whichever thing you're talking about) "infinitesimally low"?
I asked you a specific question in my last comment: when Hanson said "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens", did he mean there's a good chance UFOs are aliens?
You gave a pretty detailed rundown of how you think Hanson's views have evolved (which I appreciate). I think the implicit answer to my question was "yes", but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Given that, can you please acknowledge that you're now completely moving the goalposts? Because you claimed I was being uncharitable, and I was misinterpreting a hypothetical (with disclaimers!) from Hanson -- that he didn't actually believe the thing that I was saying he did.
Now you're saying he does believe that thing. And you're trying to prosecute the case that the thing is reasonable. That's fine, but can you please notice that you've entirely shifted the argument?
I keep reading more of his stuff and keep seeing more disclaimers ... Here he is in a another post
That's ok, because I'm not making a claim about Hanson's entire oeuvre. I'm talking about the two specific posts I got pointed to. If he has disclaimers elsewhere, that's not really relevant to my criticism of those posts.
Let me point to exactly which posts I'm talking about:
- My Politics, in which he says: "There’s a good chance some UFOs are aliens". It's presented without hedging or hypotheticals.
- UFOs -- What the Hell?, in which he says many things (which I covered in my original comment), such as: "note that our standard best scientific theories predict aliens".
I am criticising these posts. If you've found him saying other things elsewhere, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the contents of these posts. If I write a post saying "Bigfoot is real", and someone criticises it for insufficient evidence, it's unreasonable to point to a different post where I say "maybe Bigfoot is real, maybe he isn't".
While you keep reading his stuff and keep dismissing more of his disclaimers.
You are making this up.
I dismissed, in detail, exactly one disclaimer he made. Where are these multiple disclaimers I'm dismissing? I gave a pretty thorough explanation of why that disclaimer doesn't discharge my criticisms; it's not very charitable to round that off to me just generally dismissing his disclaimers, because I haven't done that.
[EDIT: to be fair, you presented a pair of adjacent disclaimers in a single block quote, which I handled as a single disclaimer. But it's still untrue to claim that I "keep dismissing more of his disclaimers"]
So he explicitly considers the "government hoax" explanation as most likely.
... and he explicitly considers "there's a good chance some UFOs are aliens".
Could you please address this quote from him directly? There are no disclaimers attached to it. Do you agree that Robin Hanson believes there is a good chance some UFOs are aliens? If not, why did he say he did?
His two claims are compatible, obviously. Maybe he thinks government hoax is 60% likely, and aliens are 30% likely. I think "a good chance" must mean at least 10%.
And I consider that to be ridiculous. I'm not criticising him for some strawman position of "I 100% believe UFOs are aliens". I'm criticising him for considering it a "good chance". That's an extraordinary position.
[Hanson is] weird guy likes weird ideas
Yes, that's fine! The Motte is full of weird guys who like weird ideas. I have nothing against that. What I'm doing is literally reading his words and assessing whether they're reasonable. Where disclaimers exists, or where he's going into a hypothetical, I'm very happy to come along with his ideas and explore what they would mean. But he isn't making disclaimers when he says there's a good chance some UFOs are aliens, or for any of the other places I'm criticising him. I'm not going to give him a blanket pass to assume everything he says is a hypothetical just because he likes weird stuff.
Robin Hanson is someone I'd feel comfortable pegging my views on aliens to. If he has recently updated his views from the ones expressed in his 2021-23 blogposts I'd be inclined to believe him without looking at any of the evidence.
There's a massive problem with doing this on the topic of aliens (not specific to Hanson).
If, say, a fitness expert tells you "make sure you eat lots of vegetables after a workout", it's reasonable to peg your beliefs to their claims. But if they say "make sure you smash yourself in the face with a brick every day", the dominant hypothesis should be "this person is mistaken".
So when an "expert on aliens" (?) tells you "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens", then your prior on UFOs being aliens should be so low that "this expert is mistaken" should be strongly in play! I'm not saying you should dismiss what they say out of hand -- it's reasonable to take their belief as evidence. But you shouldn't "be inclined to believe him without looking at any of the evidence".
I still think you are both reading him uncharitably, or reading something I haven't seen.
I'm literally just quoting him, and I've linked to the posts. If he doesn't think there's a good chance UFOs are aliens, it's his fault for saying he does; that's not a lack of charity from me.
stoatherd
1mo ago
It probably makes more sense if you view the phrase "intra-atheist squabble" as similar to "intra-bald-people squabble". Atheism isn't a faction with a unifying dogma or rules or structure, it's literally just "all the people who don't think there are any gods. It's a mistake to model atheists as a group that can, I don't know, have some kind of sedevacantist schism as to who's the real atheism pope with authority over atheism.
And I struggle to understand the second half of your bingo card: "intelligent life may be extremely improbable" isn't some crazy position, neither among atheists nor in general. From the way you're presenting it (and I may be misreading it), you seem to be saying something like: "huh, it's interesting and fun how, in arguing amongst themselves, these atheists have unintentionally generated a strong argument against atheism".
But that's not what that is!
Handwavy BigNum arguments are a typical part of the arsenal. Isn't the entire point of the unfalsifiable multiverse idea to construct a handwavy BigNum argument?
Depends which multiverse idea you're talking about, but I don't think so. When you say "arsenal", do you mean the arsenal of atheists? Because I don't think that's true either.
stoatherd
1mo ago
When you say post-camera miracle claims, do you mean:
- Miracles captured on camera, in a clear and credible way that indicates that the events of the miracle took place? (The same way that if I showed you a photo of me at a theme park, you'd take that as reasonable evidence that I went to a theme park)
- Literally just claims of miracles, that happened in the post-camera era? And/or fuzzy-bigfoot-240p type photos that don't actually disambiguate between "event happened" and "event did not happen".
Because I don't think (1) can possibly be true, but that's the one that matters. If you believe they exist, would you mind pointing me towards some? This would be the most interesting and important thing in the world.
stoatherd
1mo ago
I don't think you or stoatherd understand what Hanson was doing in that post.
Possibly true; though on a meta level, me and magicalkittycat actually agreeing on something should be considered a rare and special kind of evidence.
He is not claiming to be correct about aliens. He is specifically saying he might not be correct.
No, I don't think his disclaimers cover it.
First, in Hanson's original post where he outlines his "key positions, 2026", he says explicitly: "There’s a good chance some UFOs are aliens". No disclaimer, no playful hypothetical framing. There's no reason to regard it as some kind of sci-fi mental exercise; he literally lists it as one of his key positions.
Second, the aliens post itself makes specific claims prior to that limited-scope disclaimer, such as "we now accept ball lightning, even though evidence for it is weaker than for UFO". Couple this with his general attitude of contempt in those paragraphs -- e.g. his physics teachers "arrogantly" told him to write off UFOs. Then add in things like "I browsed UFO evidence and found it to be much stronger than stuff on ghosts or telepathy", or his titular "What the Hell!" reaction to US military reports of UFOs. This isn't someone who's meekly trying to go "hey, I just want to flag this up as a not-literally-impossible hypothesis".
Third, his disclaimer is scoped to his specific explanation of aliens, rather than to the general "UFOs are caused by aliens" explanation. His language in general assumes (though he's ambiguous about it) that the evidence for alien-type-UFOs is so strong that we should all be going "what the hell!" rather than "hmm, why is this US military report claiming something that's almost certainly not true"/
Fourth, it's a very weak disclaimer. "I'm not claiming this as fact; I'm saying it isn't crazy". I generally like disclaimers of this form! But they can't be coupled with content that clearly is claiming the thing as a likely fact. "There's a good chance some UFOs are aliens" is much stronger than "this isn't literally crazy". He's doing a motte and bailey: when he presents his high-level beliefs, it's the strong version ("good chance"); then, when justifying stuff, he retreats to the weak version ("not crazy").
You should read the rest of his post like you read a hard sci fi author. All the steps and things happening need to be plausibly true not actually true.
I think you're just wrong about this.
I know the kind of mode of discussion you're pointing to. My canonical model for this is "irreducible complexity" -- when a creationist says "the human eye is so complex it couldn't have possibly evolved". In that mode, it suffices to come up with any plausibly true mechanism by which the eye could have evolved; you don't need to prove it.
So I get exactly what you're describing, and I agree that it's a valuable mode of argumentation, and needs to be recognised when it's in play...
... and I just don't think Hanson is doing it. A narrowly-scoped "I'm just saying this isn't crazy", coupled with everything else, isn't enough to credibly signal that mode. Here's an example of how I'd signal it, in Hanson's position:
A U.S. military report says that intelligently controlled UFOs with amazing abilities seem real to them, even if they don’t know their cause. Maybe this seems fantastical. But let's suspend our disbelief for now, and explore the hypothesis. Suppose the report is 100% true, and these UFOs with bizarre abilities truly exist. How can we square that with what we know? I'm going to show you how "aliens" is one plausible explanation, based on...
He wouldn't have to phrase it like that, obviously. But if he's trying to convey "hey, I don't actually believe this, it's just a toy sci-fi exercise", then he's done a very bad job that seems inconsistent with his general ability to communicate. If I tell a Young Earth Creationist "There's a good chance the human eye formed via gene sequence B857-X223", and then subsequently make an argument for that specific explanation, I don't get to fall back on "but I only need a plausible explanation for the human eye; it doesn't have to be that specific one".
stoatherd
1mo ago
I was surprised by this claim (my very loose knowledge of Robin Hanson hasn't flagged him up as insane), so I went to check it out. For anyone else lacking the context on this, here's what Hanson said (which I think magicalkittycat has represented faithfully):
There’s a good chance some UFOs are aliens. If so, they are likely here to domesticate us, so that we obey their no-expansion rule. This is bad news.
Hanson links to a post where he expands on his position on UFOs. It's an interesting read. I think "insane" is a fair characterisation. In the first paragraph, we get:
we now accept ball lightning, even though evidence for it is weaker than for UFO
Not a great start. It's frustrating that he doesn't bother distinguishing between whether he means "UFO-as-unidentified-flying-object" vs "UFO-as-alien-craft", which is absolutely load-bearing. It's the difference between "yes, obviously" and "you are lying to me".
a U.S. military report says that intelligently controlled UFOs with amazing abilities seem real (...) Hence my and perhaps your titular reaction, “What the Hell?” How can this make any sense?
I don't understand what's gone wrong in Hanson's brain here.
There is no possible content of a US military report that would make me go "What the Hell?", because "this report is false" is always a plausible hypothesis. It wouldn't make me go "What the Hell?" if I learned a military report were mistaken or a deliberate lie. So anything that has a higher WTF factor than a wrong report cannot possibly make me go "What the Hell?", because the report-is-mistaken hypothesis would defeat it!
It baffles me that he does this, right underneath his floating website banner which declares: "Overcoming Bias".
It gets worse:
First, note that our standard best scientific theories predict aliens
... what? No, they don't.
That is, they predict that life sometimes arises from simple dead matter, and can eventually evolve to make intelligent creatures like us
"That is" isn't supposed to allow you to link two entirely different things! "Our best theories predict unicorns; that is, they predict universal gravitation". This isn't science; this isn't anything.
...
I expected the rest of the article to contain some kind of evidence for aliens, at least in Hanson's view. Instead, he performs an annoying series of shell games (including, I expect, on himself) to flip the burden of proof away from himself. Then, once he's confused himself and his readers enough to make it seem like he might have some kind of reasonable position, he constructs a ridiculously elaborate theory of exactly what type of aliens probably exist. It has the same kind of attitude as a stupidly written Sherlock Holmes deduction sequence ("there is chalk on your sleeve, therefore it must be chalk from the Prussian ambassador's club, therefore the ambassador's wife's diamond necklace is a fake!") or a lazy deist/specific-god equivocation ("there appears to be generic evidence for some kind of creator, therefore it is exactly my one specific god and my holy text is correct").
I agree with him on the meta level of "don't be ashamed to examine things just because people label them 'conspiracy theories'"; that's stupid. But the balance of probability on UFOs/UAPs is that they're natural, terrestrial phenomena. If aliens exist -- which I think is plausible -- they almost certainly exist much too far away to interact with us. (I'm pretty sure his version of panspermia, where a rock from a neighbouring system happens to hit not only the Solar System but Earth specifically, is insanely improbable -- even leaving aside questions like "could even a tardigrade survive the catastrophe of a massive meteoric impact?" I could be wrong about this, though.)
This is a shame. I've almost certainly read a bunch of Robin Hanson stuff in the past, and have probably trusted him as an expert in some capacity or other. I think this article from him is pretty disqualifying. This is egregious nonsense, and I'm glad mkc brought it up.
I am saying all this because I'm an alien participating in the cover-up, obviously.
stoatherd
1mo ago
Yes, Marxism has multiple "core" reasons for failure; it's probably reasonable at a certain point to just call them reasons.
Still: can you imagine any factors that muddy the link between "X is a reason that Marxism fails" and "X is reported as a reason that Marxism fails"?
For example: can you imagine a social incentive against saying "I oppose X because it leads to me having less sex?"
I don't think the lack of explicitly reporting a particular reason is good evidence the the reason wasn't important.
stoatherd
2mo ago
Nobody panics when things go "according to plan."
A immigrant kills a native? Start building the internment camps and spare no thought for human dignity or individuals' rights.
An uncharitable person might think there's some folks just looking for an excuse to do a pogrom.
To be clear, an immigrant gouged out a deaf man's eyes, then tried to behead him.
An uncharitable person might think you're deliberately sanding off the horrific, inhuman corners of this specific crime, then presenting it as "merely" an immigrant attempting to murder a native.
There is no version of this where, in your example, an athlete (?) attempts to gouge out a man's eyes and behead him, and we all go "well, that's part of the plan".
stoatherd
2mo ago
Ok, timeout: is English your second language? I don't mean that as an insult -- obviously your English is very, very good; I've assumed you're a native speaker until now. But I have a vague lingering memory that you're Swiss (?), so it seems possible that English is a second language for you; and the comment that you just made is compatible with either (1) a native speaker being blatantly dishonest; or (2) a non-native speaker understandably mixing up two things.
Because if it's the latter: please pay more attention to what people are saying. I don't think this is a likely explanation -- I'm more like 70% sure that you know exactly what's going on, and you don't care. But if you're a non-native speaker repeatedly making honest mistakes, please notice! This is why people are accusing you of bad faith; this is why you view other people as horses that can't be led to water -- they're not saying what you think they're saying!
I said:
Dude, I asked you: "So... you're not contesting that you lied about what he said?"
You replied:
I did contest what he said!
These aren't the same thing. "contesting that you lied" is not the same thing as "contesting what he said". You keep making "mistakes" like this. Until now, I've assumed these are deliberate lies. I still think that's the more likely explanation, but this specific one made me go: "Huh, is this a language barrier?" I can somewhat understand mistaking these two things if you're speaking a second language, and not recognising that you're failing to actually read what people are saying.
If English is your first language, then obviously none of this is relevant.
How about instead of having a meta conversation, we have the actual conversation where someone finally provides semi decent evidence for their claims a guy was charged for bruising and officers fists while blocking beyond "guy on X said so".
Yes! You're welcome to continue having that conversation with FMC. Don't let me stop you. Personally, I'm not at all interested in that argument, which is why I haven't made any comments on it.
It all seems like a way to dodge that maybe said evidence might not actually exist.
Again, I haven't participated in that argument! You don't even know what my position is -- I might even agree with you!
So no, it's not a way to "dodge" anything. I'm not even a participant in the imagined fight you're having. The thing I care about is you saying untrue things about other people on the Motte; for me, that's the object level.
I couldn't find any! You double checked and didn't find it. So where is it?
The language thing notwithstanding: you are lying, again. I did not "double check". I copy-pasted a thing from ChatGPT to show that your standard of "checking" with AI is nonsense. That was my entire point, as I've now explained to you infinity billion + 1 times. Why are you still pretending otherwise?
Where in the photo does it back the claim the guy was charged for injuring an officer while defending himself?
No idea! Don't care. Not a thing I've actually claimed, though, is it?
Again, please learn to read what people are actually saying. I'm not going to defend a position that I've never held; pretending that I've held that position is dishonest.
There isn't any way. It does not back up the claims at all.
That's fine. I'd appreciate you possibly engaging with the actual words in my comment, not some imagined alternative version. My comments have been about you lying; it's hard to see how I could've been clearer.
@UwU -- this is a perfect example of magicalkittycat just openly fucking with people.
I am doing exactly that? I explained to you where the many people come from.
Dude, I asked you: "So... you're not contesting that you lied about what he said?"
The "many people" part is not part of that. You know this. Why do you deliberately conflate everything? Do you think people reading your comment are stupid, or are you just so used to lying that it doesn't even register as lying any more?
You lied about the contents of his comment. Then I asked you about it. This attempt to deflect onto "b-but I'm addressing that!" while talking about something completely different is exactly the bullshit you pulled when we were discussing Nowak.
And the only external evidence provided was a post on X
You are lying, again. As I said in my comment, multiple times, the evidence was a photo. Not verbal evidence. Not someone on X "saying" something. A goddam photograph of a situation. You can disagree with his take on the photo; I'm not even endorsing his take. But pretending that the photo doesn't exist is a fucking lie.
Now could it be [extraneous, irrelevant bullshit]
Yeah, not actually relevant to you lying about what other Motte users said, though, is it?
In fact you followed up and also didn't find any external affirmative evidence that the X users claims were real! https://www.themotte.org/post/3781/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/449800?context=8#context
You literally went to double check and ChatGPT said it doesn't have any knowledge of that case.
Oh, go fuck yourself, you liar.
Mods, I'll happily eat a ban for this; sorry, but the gaslighting from magicalkittycat is getting ridiculous.
As anyone who cares to actually follow your link will see, I was explicitly pointing out your stupid, inconsistent use of ChatGPT. I've done this multiple times, and each time you deliberately misrepresent what I'm doing.
I wasn't looking for external affirmative evidence. I was proving that your position of using ChatGPT as a neutral, impartial arbiter is obviously insane and wrong. I look forward to explaining this to you another fifteen billion times, as you don't seem to be interested in ever actually listening to what other people explain to you.
So to clarify There has been no even semi decent evidence provided that a protestor was charged for blocking his face from police fists and thus causing the knuckles to be bruised. The only evidence, extremely low quality f tier evidence, provided is a guy on X claims it happened without anything else attached. And yet this evidentiary standard was endorsed by at least 7 people.
You are lying.
"The only evidence, extremely low quality f tier evidence, provided is a guy on X claims it happened"
Again, for the infinity billionth time: there is a link to a photo. I'm not claiming it's good evidence; I really don't give a shit about the object-level claim. I give a shit that you are repeatedly lying on the Motte.
Like, you are just objectively, repeatedly, incontestably saying untrue things. Then, when challenged, you switch to an entirely different thing, smugly conflate the two, and act like that's what you were saying all along. It's absolutely pathetic.
stoatherd
2mo ago
So... you're not contesting that you lied about what he said?
Or are you hoping that, if you don't address that point, people won't notice?
To check I've got my facts straight: one Motte user links to a photo that they think shows unfair assault of a J6er. Six people upvote this. You choose to lie and represent this as:
The standard of evidence for many motte users that cops unfairly assaulted a protestor on Jan 6th is apparently "this guy on X said so"
This is called lying.
stoatherd
2mo ago
The standard of evidence for many motte users that cops unfairly assaulted a protestor on Jan 6th is apparently "this guy on X said so"
You are lying.
Let's go through the "many motte users" who made claims of unfair J6 assault while referencing X:
- KMC linked to a photo on X, in which you can see what (in KMC's interpretation) is a guy being unfairly assaulted. That's not "this guy on X said so", as you know -- that's KMC going (rightly or wrongly) "I can see the assault in this photo".
... I was planning to go through the other users one by one, but I actually can't find any others. Could it be that you took a single Motte user who linked to a photo on X, lied about what they said, and then used this as a basis for "many motte users"?
It's entirely possible I've missed a bunch of other comments. If you can link me to them, I'll be happy to review them to check if you're honestly representing them, or just lying about them too.
stoatherd
2mo ago
Congrats, of course, on completely ignoring the point of my comment: if you were trying to calm things down, why did you deliberately use the exact same insulting phrases as mkc?
Apparently not.
Based on... literally nothing? That's not what "apparently" means.
Maybe you should update your priors about what constitutes good behavior in this place
No, thanks. I know that it's poor behaviour to call an innocent murdered man a "retard"; or to pretend to be cooling a conflict, while deliberately fanning the flames by insulting one party, using the exact words their opponent was using to try and piss them off.
I think its far clear you are pissed that I have a disagreeable opinion
Dude, I don't know or care what your object-level opinion is on this stuff. I remember that you called the dead guy a "retard", which I thought was extremely poor taste. But imagining that I'm following you around (in a thread in which I'm heavily active) is narcissistic and paranoid. Am I following you around now, for replying to a comment you posed directly to me?
I don't feel the need to shit-stir online, I can do it in person to a far more enjoyable degree
See, most people don't feel the need to shit-stir at all.
It is always weird to me that there exists a class of people who essentially assume any opinion not agreeing with their own is a troll
Yes, that does seem weird. Are you pretending I'm in that class of people? That would be pretty weird, seeing as (1) I don't know what your opinions are, and I really don't care if you disagree with me, and (2) I haven't called you a troll.
Obviously you know all this, and don't actually care. I don't know why you'd come to a forum of heterodox thinkers, and try to antagonise people by making shit up about them. What's the point?
stoatherd
2mo ago
If you're genuinely unable to tell the difference between:
- "that quote is not true in any literal or legal sense."
- "I can't verify whether that caption accurately reflects the legal charges involved"
... then I don't know what to tell you.
If magicalkittycat doesn't have to post receipts for claiming to be principled, or casting other members of this forum as stupid illiterate horses, then it's a pretty asymmetric demand that I have to post receipts to push back on that. (Also, "for no good reason"? You can literally see a reason in the comment I'm replying to! Anyone who goes "I'm great and principled; other people on this forum are stupid" is opening the door to being told: "no".)
I get that vagueness is easier to defend
Very charitable, thanks.
One reason that thread is so long is because I (and others like FtttG) spent a ton of time not being vague! We specifically repeatedly explained how mkc was being dishonest. If we'd been vague, it would've been a much shorter thread!
So, we explain the dishonesty in detail => thread becomes long => you say "thread is long, you are vague". Doesn't really seem fair.
But I do get where you're coming from, so I'll explain some specific points of dishonesty in that thread. This isn't a complete accounting, it's just off the top of my head:
- mkc claims the Nowak scenario is common. I and FtttG separately ask for examples of a specific thing (police arrest victim nonwhite person instead of murderer white person). mkc pretends to have already provided that. We repeatedly point out that no, you haven't provided that. mkc switches to "well actually this thing is rare so there are few examples either way". I ask for a single example, which is never provided.
- mkc tries to cast FtttG as some kind of terminally online forum gremlin ("touch grass" etc). I explain to him that this reflects poorly on mkc. mkc keeps up an act of "what smear? what bad thing did I say? I'm not attacking FtttG, I'm not doing anything wrong :3", while being clearly aware of exactly what he was doing (and doubling down on it).
- in previous threads, mkc often uses ChatGPT to "prove" his position, claiming it's a neutral/impartial party. In this thread, I use ChatGPT to "disprove" his current position, as a demonstration that either his current position is wrong, or that ChatGPT isn't a neutral arbiter. He switches to a stance of: you didn't post your prompt, that's a strawman! ... except that mkc, in previously using ChatGPT, doesn't always post his prompt. He didn't acknowledge this -- but he did switch to consistently posting his prompt, possibly to sell the illusion that that's what he's always done.
- In using ChatGPT to "prove" his position, he used what he claimed what a "neutral" prompt that deliberately omitted the relevant facts of the case -- the racial angle -- which was the entire thing we were discussing.
Another problem with your policy of "I need specific individual instances of bad faith; I won't read a long thread" is that it allows posters like mkc to fly under the radar. If you're looking for a threshold of (say) 60% bad faith in an individual comment, and someone is consistently operating at 55% bad faith, then any one individual comment isn't going to set off your alarms. But the cumulative effect of 55% bad faith is much worse than a single 60% bad faith comment!
(EDIT: here is a clear example of mkc posting in bad faith. He got ChatGPT to say "this photo's caption is untrue". I got ChatGPT to say "I can't verify whether this photo's caption is true or false". mkc's response to this contradiction: "this supports me, I am right!" This isn't good faith; this isn't anything. This is purely him throwing whatever words he can at an argument, without regard for truth or consistency.)
"Now we can all assume" does not posit a hypothetical.
If you'd like, I can patronisingly link you to the definition of every word in that sentence, as that's the level of discourse you've decided to operate on.
More options
Context Copy link