Watermelon Man
@makertaker.bsky.social
I am a superhero whose superpower is knowing when someone is saying something stupid and ideologically blinded.
I am rationalist adjacent. If that upsets you...ya might be stupid.
My superhero persona has nothing to do with international relations.
I am rationalist adjacent. If that upsets you...ya might be stupid.
My superhero persona has nothing to do with international relations.
I think this was a pretty good model for what truth finding on social media can be like, so think it has value to stay up. Maybe a reply to the original post linking to Andrew's post more directly?
November 27, 2024 at 12:57 PM
I think this was a pretty good model for what truth finding on social media can be like, so think it has value to stay up. Maybe a reply to the original post linking to Andrew's post more directly?
The plot thickens!
November 27, 2024 at 12:52 PM
The plot thickens!
Yep, very helpful to know. Just realised in my previous point I say "does undermine", but that's obviously too far - what I mean is "does point towards undermining"
November 27, 2024 at 12:48 PM
Yep, very helpful to know. Just realised in my previous point I say "does undermine", but that's obviously too far - what I mean is "does point towards undermining"
bsky.app/profile/make...
Also worth noting that this isn't a quote from James Baldwin, but - details!
Also worth noting that this isn't a quote from James Baldwin, but - details!
Sure, I think that's about right.
Of course, the question of whether a disagreement is rooted in one side's oppression and denial of their humanity and right to exist is often exactly what the disagreement is about!
Of course, the question of whether a disagreement is rooted in one side's oppression and denial of their humanity and right to exist is often exactly what the disagreement is about!
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist”
James Baldwin
James Baldwin
November 27, 2024 at 12:25 PM
bsky.app/profile/make...
Also worth noting that this isn't a quote from James Baldwin, but - details!
Also worth noting that this isn't a quote from James Baldwin, but - details!
No prob! I agree, it wouldn't be surprising. Reading further into the argument between Kahan and his critics, it does seem like while there's some meaningful question of whether "replicate" is quite the right word, their response study does undermine the idea this is a real phenomena and not noise
November 27, 2024 at 12:18 PM
No prob! I agree, it wouldn't be surprising. Reading further into the argument between Kahan and his critics, it does seem like while there's some meaningful question of whether "replicate" is quite the right word, their response study does undermine the idea this is a real phenomena and not noise
Spending any amount of time arguing on the internet will surely render this result entirely unsurprising!
November 27, 2024 at 12:07 PM
Spending any amount of time arguing on the internet will surely render this result entirely unsurprising!
Was about to correct you with an "uh, uh, uh, this one doesn't replicate", but it seems it's more complicated than that:
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/f...
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/f...
Failure of failure to replicate | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu
November 27, 2024 at 12:06 PM
Was about to correct you with an "uh, uh, uh, this one doesn't replicate", but it seems it's more complicated than that:
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/f...
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/04/11/f...
Agreed. I think in some circles, evolutionary psychology remains a controversial topic, but I don't think it should be, it seems like the most plausible way to explain moral intuitions!
November 27, 2024 at 11:54 AM
Agreed. I think in some circles, evolutionary psychology remains a controversial topic, but I don't think it should be, it seems like the most plausible way to explain moral intuitions!
I spend the amount on my middle class, always comfortably heated home, that they say is the bare essential. No - I am definitely being lavish!
November 27, 2024 at 11:28 AM
I spend the amount on my middle class, always comfortably heated home, that they say is the bare essential. No - I am definitely being lavish!
I don't wish to argue people on Universal Credit don't deserve to have these things, nor that having less than this will not be miserable, but to frame £60 month on toiletries as essential is obviously dishonest in a meaningful way. There's no chance that is essential.
November 27, 2024 at 11:28 AM
I don't wish to argue people on Universal Credit don't deserve to have these things, nor that having less than this will not be miserable, but to frame £60 month on toiletries as essential is obviously dishonest in a meaningful way. There's no chance that is essential.
From an evolutionary psychology perspective (I promised controversy!) it sort of makes sense. Way back when, in small communities, a person who is freeloading off of you is much harder to deal with than someone doing their thing and not providing for the community.
November 27, 2024 at 11:22 AM
From an evolutionary psychology perspective (I promised controversy!) it sort of makes sense. Way back when, in small communities, a person who is freeloading off of you is much harder to deal with than someone doing their thing and not providing for the community.
Missing from this piece is any evidence for the core claim that a higher benefit amount will increase health and cause more people to be able to be employed.
It's possible, but it's a fairly essential element of the argument. Surely a professional organisation should be fastidious in this?
It's possible, but it's a fairly essential element of the argument. Surely a professional organisation should be fastidious in this?
November 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM
Missing from this piece is any evidence for the core claim that a higher benefit amount will increase health and cause more people to be able to be employed.
It's possible, but it's a fairly essential element of the argument. Surely a professional organisation should be fastidious in this?
It's possible, but it's a fairly essential element of the argument. Surely a professional organisation should be fastidious in this?
You might be getting a slightly exaggerated story, in that case!
November 26, 2024 at 6:06 PM
You might be getting a slightly exaggerated story, in that case!
I think that is an undernuanced interpretation of what happened. How many protestors have been jailed in the past 2 years? My understanding is the answer is a handful.
November 26, 2024 at 6:01 PM
I think that is an undernuanced interpretation of what happened. How many protestors have been jailed in the past 2 years? My understanding is the answer is a handful.
Whether or not it's funny is not a matter for the police, we can surely agree?
I agree that racism can exist amongst minority communities, but the examples you've given here clearly don't apply. He is a black man who used the term "black" pejoratively. I think making this illegal is v questionable.
I agree that racism can exist amongst minority communities, but the examples you've given here clearly don't apply. He is a black man who used the term "black" pejoratively. I think making this illegal is v questionable.
November 26, 2024 at 5:31 PM
Whether or not it's funny is not a matter for the police, we can surely agree?
I agree that racism can exist amongst minority communities, but the examples you've given here clearly don't apply. He is a black man who used the term "black" pejoratively. I think making this illegal is v questionable.
I agree that racism can exist amongst minority communities, but the examples you've given here clearly don't apply. He is a black man who used the term "black" pejoratively. I think making this illegal is v questionable.
You are aware that the person in question is black, yes?
November 26, 2024 at 1:58 PM
You are aware that the person in question is black, yes?
Your position is under nuanced, narrow minded, and frankly - childish. It doesn't consider the deep complexity with which the political world works, and instead approaches it by saying "that's bad, put them in jail".
It's abundantly clear you've never engaged seriously with political philosophy.
It's abundantly clear you've never engaged seriously with political philosophy.
November 26, 2024 at 1:13 PM
Your position is under nuanced, narrow minded, and frankly - childish. It doesn't consider the deep complexity with which the political world works, and instead approaches it by saying "that's bad, put them in jail".
It's abundantly clear you've never engaged seriously with political philosophy.
It's abundantly clear you've never engaged seriously with political philosophy.
So by extension, your position is that every president should be jailed?
November 26, 2024 at 1:11 PM
So by extension, your position is that every president should be jailed?
There are certainly downsides to democracy, but it is the best available form of government.
What is your solution to this problem?
What is your solution to this problem?
November 26, 2024 at 1:10 PM
There are certainly downsides to democracy, but it is the best available form of government.
What is your solution to this problem?
What is your solution to this problem?
Right, but election fraud has a clear meaning that doesn't mean they lied. If any deception is fraud, then there has never been a single candidate who has not engaged in election fraud, right?
November 26, 2024 at 12:19 PM
Right, but election fraud has a clear meaning that doesn't mean they lied. If any deception is fraud, then there has never been a single candidate who has not engaged in election fraud, right?