lmn

Karma: 34

lmn 30 Sep 2017 4:14 UTC
1 point
in reply to: VipulNaik’s comment on: Wikipedia pageviews: still in decline
Specifically, the main quality factors in people reading a Wikipedia page are (a) the existence of the page (!), (b) whether the page has the stuff they were looking for.
(c) whether the information on the page is accurate.
I proxied the first by number of pages, and the second by length of the pages that already existed.
Except not all topics and not all information are of equal interest to people.

lmn 30 Sep 2017 4:10 UTC
−3 points
on: Moderator’s Dilemma: The Risks of Partial Intervention
In this approach, you concede a need to at least occasionally intervene in a particular kind of dispute such as banning the white supremacists
Another problem with this is what does one mean by “white supremacists”? The definition used by the people who most advocate banning them tends to include anyone who believes in certain statements about the differences between races that are almost certainly true. For example, how race correlates with IQ. This is especially a problem for a forum that wants to be “rational”.

lmn 30 Sep 2017 3:59 UTC
1 point
in reply to: VipulNaik’s comment on: Wikipedia pageviews: still in decline
You seem to be conflating quantity and quality.

lmn 29 Sep 2017 1:45 UTC
1 point
on: Wikipedia pageviews: still in decline
To mention the elephant in the living room, I wonder if the increasingly broken wikipedia mod culture has something to do with this.

lmn 29 Sep 2017 1:42 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Chris_Leong’s comment on: Frontpage Posting and Commenting Guidelines
What about ostensibly apolitical posts that nonetheless use hot button issues as examples?
What about situations where a hot button issue comes up in the context of discussion?

lmn 29 Sep 2017 1:07 UTC
1 point
in reply to: magfrump’s comment on: Deontologist Envy
Here is Vox Day explicitly arguing that if conservatives can be fired for expressing their opinions, so should NFL player for disrespecting the flag.
We all know that the NFL wouldn’t hesitate to act if players started throwing Nazi salutes; they already come down hard on the expression of any opinion that is negative about homosexuality.
The Rubicon has been decisively crossed, so it’s time to start cracking down on “speech” Americans don’t like.
Always play by the rules that are actually in place, not by the rules that you wish were in place.

lmn 26 Sep 2017 0:06 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: silver-and-ivory’s comment on: Deontologist Envy
This certainly seems rather accusatory, seeing as (as far as I know) Ozy doesn’t actually support doxxing random social media users and is certainly not responsible for the actions of the entire SJ movement.
Except the OP is presented as an arguments against the elements of SJ that would oppose it.
Ozy’s claim here, as far as I can tell, is that, even if people on Our Side stopped doing bad things, that wouldn’t automatically cause people on The Other Side to stop doing bad things. Do you actually think that Ozy is wrong about this, or do you only disagree that the evidence they present is sufficient?
Yes, it’s a lot easier to maintain a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium than to return to one once you’re side has started defecting.
Also, many people who dox don’t conceive of the situation in this way. “I doxxed someone, so in return I got doxxed. Therefore, I will never dox again.” No, when they dox people it’s good because those people are bad; when they get doxxed it’s bad because they’re a good person.
While near as I can tell this does seem to be a good description of how SJ’s think, the typical way the Alt-Right thinks is, “The SJ’s dox us, therefore we’re justified in doxxing SJ’s”.

lmn 24 Sep 2017 23:43 UTC
−9 points
on: Deontologist Envy
The second is a rather touching faith in the ability of people’s virtuous behavior to influence their political opponents.
This may be true but vicous behaviour will encourage political oponents to retaliate in kind. It’s called tit-for-tat and this article suggests you don’t understand it.
Now, if it happened that my actions had any influence whatsoever over the behavior of r/TumblrInAction, that would be great. I don’t screenshot random tumblr users and mock them in front of an audience of over three hundred thousand people,
Maybe you personally don’t but the SJ movement you seem to support certainly does that to random social media users and not just mocks them but goes after them and their families and tries to get them fired from their jobs.
For instance, they could be tolerant of teenagers with dumb political beliefs, remembering how stupid their own teenage political beliefs were.
Because it’s not like SJ’s would do something like attempt to destroy the career of a celebrity chef over her having used the word “nigger” 60 years ago. Also, making fun of their dumb political beliefs is a great way to encourage tennagers to adopt less dumb political beliefs.
They could stop making fun of deitykin, otherwise known as “psychotic people with delusions of grandeur,” because jesus fucking christ it is horrible to mock a mentally ill person for showing mental illness symptoms. They could stop with the “I identify as an attack helicopter” jokes; I mean, I don’t have any ethical argument against those jokes, it’s just that there is exactly one of them that was ever funny.
Disagree, it’ll remain funny as long as people like yourself insist that any analogous argument applied to gender is beyond question no matter how stupid it is, or how much logic is tortured in the process. It’s certainly funnier than the ridiculous “flying spaghetti monster” thing.

lmn 23 Sep 2017 3:47 UTC
−15 points
in reply to: namespace’s comment on: Common vs Expert Jargon
Um, the whole point of SJ usage is to win arguments through intimidation, thus this would be conterproductive.

lmn 23 Sep 2017 3:44 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: Common vs Expert Jargon
“intersectional” strikes me as an example of an intentionally confusing term, at least I’ve never been able to figure out a meaning beyond “a word people throw into arguments to make it a norm violation to notice that said arguments make no sense”.

lmn 23 Sep 2017 3:25 UTC
−4 points
on: In Defense of Unreliability
I’m scared of leaving my house. This means that when I make social arrangements a lot of the time I won’t end up actually going to them because I will be too scared of leaving my house. Whether I’m going to have a good mental health day or a bad mental health day is hard to predict even a week in advance, because it depends on short-term triggers like whether I’ve fought with a close friend, whether the assholes across the street have decided to set off fireworks, whether a person has said something unpleasant about me on the Internet, whether I’ve been doing a good job of remembering that in spite of what my brain tells me doing things will make me feel better and not doing things will make me feel worse, and so on.
A prime example of the benefits of an internal locus of control.

lmn 26 Aug 2017 16:27 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Friendly-HI’s comment on: Emotional labour
I’m reminded of an incident in Richard Feynman’s “What do you care what other people think?” involving his then girlfriend, later wife, Arline and her illness. Her family chose to go with (1) both Feynman and her where rather annoyed when they found out. I don’t remember the exact details right now and don’t have the book in front of me.

lmn 19 Aug 2017 6:07 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Social Insight: When a Lie Is Not a Lie; When a Truth Is Not a Truth

I don’t think that it depends on them.

Then why are you asserting them?

lmn 17 Aug 2017 19:45 UTC
2 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Social Insight: When a Lie Is Not a Lie; When a Truth Is Not a Truth

There’s a bunch of politics involved and additionally, it’s about the distinction of states for which I believe jimmy to which I have replied to have mental models

And why does this discussion of psychological states depend no you asserting false statements about contemporary politics?

lmn 16 Aug 2017 3:28 UTC
0 points
in reply to: jimmy’s comment on: Social Insight: When a Lie Is Not a Lie; When a Truth Is Not a Truth

Clearly Trump tells lies that lead to people believing simple factual falsehoods.

I don’t think this is clear at all. At least the statements of his that people object to the loudest aren’t lies.

lmn 15 Aug 2017 6:17 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Daniel_Burfoot’s comment on: Open thread, August 14 - August 20, 2017
In (1) the subject is the word “none”. The word “us” is part of the prepositional phrase “of us”.

lmn 15 Aug 2017 0:55 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Bound_up’s comment on: Social Insight: When a Lie Is Not a Lie; When a Truth Is Not a Truth
Honestly, I’m not sure how much Scott Adams even believes what he says. I suspect part of it is that his target audience is people for whom “don’t worry Trump doesn’t actually believe these things, he’s just saying them to hypnotize the masses” is less threatening then “actually these things Trump says are true”. If you want the latter, I recommend Steve Sailer.

lmn 15 Aug 2017 0:49 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Social Insight: When a Lie Is Not a Lie; When a Truth Is Not a Truth

I’m sorry, I good the name wrong. I meant to say John Oliver and got the last name wrong.

This doesn’t exactly inspire me to trust your memory about other details of the story.

I referencing information from one of his videos on Trump.

Specifically, he appears to have made a joke that could reasonably be interpreted as an invitation to Trump (specifically inviting an alias Trump once used), then said “that was only a joke” when Trump called him on it.

I think Last Week Tonight generally follows at least Karl Roves 100% truth test.

I admittedly haven’t watched it, but isn’t that the show that perfected the “laugh track in place of counter-argument without other breaks so viewers don’t have time to rationally process what’s being said” format.

lmn 13 Aug 2017 20:47 UTC
0 points
on: Repairing Anxiety using Internal and External locus of control models
This reads like the author has such a strong external locus of control that he can’t even imagine how an actual internal locus works. The whole point of an internal locus of control for things you can actually control is to control them. For example, rather than the rationalization for inaction:

My house is a mess, it’s my fault but I don’t care.

the actual internal locus of control behavior is:

My house is a mess and I’m going to clean it up right now, that mean before replying to this comment.

lmn 13 Aug 2017 19:04 UTC
3 points
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Social Insight: When a Lie Is Not a Lie; When a Truth Is Not a Truth

There are many issues where Trump lies about an issue where the truth would be simple to explain and be understood by average people. When Trump tells the public that John Stewart invited Trump multiple times when John Stewart did no such thing it might be “emotionally true” in the sense that people who watch Trump want to emotionally belief.

It’s interesting that the best example you could come up with appears to be an obscure bit of trivia. I wasn’t able to figure out the exact details by searching, but Jon Steward certainly said many things that sounded like he was implying he’d love to have Trump on his show, e.g., this. I suspect, what may have happened is that Jon Steward (whose whole schtick is telling lies and half-truths, using a laugh track in lieu of a counter-argument, and pleading “just joking” when called on it) likes to imply he would totally beat Trump in an argument. A much more fun thing to say until Trump implies you’re just desperate to have him on the show for the ratings boost.

Berny Sanders for example said in on of the debates that America is the richest country on earth. There are countries with a richer per capita GDP but that’s besides the point that Sanders made for the debate.

Which was? I’m guessing it was something along the lines of “America is the richest country on earth therefore we can afford to adopt ”.