I upvoted you because I think your explanation of Lumifer’s point there is correct and needed to be said.
However, I’d like to comment on this bit:
Given that gjm has just demonstrated that (3) is false, I’m inclined to believe the real reason for your bias is that you belong to a tribe where agreeing with gjm’s conclusion is high status.
I don’t think this is fair to take away gjm’s entire reputation based on one disagreement or even one confirmed counterexample.
I also think it’s premature to conclude that satt is biased here due to tribal beliefs, because I think the comment satt made is perfectly consistent with a low to nonexistent amount of tribal bias, as well as consistent with a good ability to acknowledge and correct for tribal biases when pointed out. It’s consistent with the alternative too, of course, but I’d want to see some distinguishing evidence before making a point of it.
I’m guessing that you think I’m passive aggressively hinting that this more of a confirmed counter example than an honest disagreement? I promise you that is not my intent. My intent is that it applies even if it were confirmed, since I suspect that user:math might see it that way, while saying nothing about how I see it. To clarify, no, I see it as a disagreement.
I was also not aware that it was Eugine. (and of course, even if it wasn’t, that wouldn’t remove your reputation in anyone else’s eyes, and I was talking about it as an internal move)
I upvoted you because I think your explanation of Lumifer’s point there is correct and needed to be said.
However, I’d like to comment on this bit:
I don’t think this is fair to take away gjm’s entire reputation based on one disagreement or even one confirmed counterexample.
I also think it’s premature to conclude that satt is biased here due to tribal beliefs, because I think the comment satt made is perfectly consistent with a low to nonexistent amount of tribal bias, as well as consistent with a good ability to acknowledge and correct for tribal biases when pointed out. It’s consistent with the alternative too, of course, but I’d want to see some distinguishing evidence before making a point of it.
I would just like to mention that I see what you did there.
In any case, I am not greatly worried that snark from Yet Another Eugine Sockpuppet is going to “take away gjm’s entire reputation”.
I’m guessing that you think I’m passive aggressively hinting that this more of a confirmed counter example than an honest disagreement? I promise you that is not my intent. My intent is that it applies even if it were confirmed, since I suspect that user:math might see it that way, while saying nothing about how I see it. To clarify, no, I see it as a disagreement.
I was also not aware that it was Eugine. (and of course, even if it wasn’t, that wouldn’t remove your reputation in anyone else’s eyes, and I was talking about it as an internal move)