you can engage with journalists while holding to rationalist principles to only say true things.
Suppose there was a relatively simple computer program, say a kind of social media bot, that when you input a statement, posts the opposite of that statement. Would you argue that as long you only type true statements yourself, using this program doesn't constitute lying?
This line of reasoning leads to Richelieu's six lines, where everyone is guilty of something, so you can punish anyone at any time for any reason: process crimes make for a much more plausible pretext to go after a target than any "intrinsically bad" thing.
tout their “holistic” approach to recognizing creativity and intellectual promise
This doesn't mean what you think it means. It's code for racial discrimination.
I edited the screenshot of this Twitter thread.
If you'd put in a link to a deleted tweet, I'd probably have believed it.
With a bit of luck, we might soon get a Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques who will weigh in on the other side of this, which should help even out the "holiness." From a morality/virtue perspective, I favor the bone-saw guy: he seems generally less preachy.
How about "xif," for "exclusively if"?
If I came up with a game in which always saying "[wrong answer], ≈0%" was a winning strategy, I'd conclude not valuing correctness at all was a fatally flawed idea, and the change the rules so that wasn't true any more, not insist the game was fine, and it's the people who actually thought about the rules who were playing it wrong.
absolutism, treating their conclusions and the righteousness of their cause as obvious, and assuming it should override ordinary business considerations.
It doesn't take certainty in any position to criticize driving at half-speed.
This seems to fall into the same genre as "that word processor can be used to produce disinformation," "that image editor can be used to produce 'CSAM'," and "the pocket calculator is capable of displaying the number 5318008."