lmn
Message
34
89
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".
You seem to be conflating quantity and quality.
To mention the elephant in the living room, I wonder if the increasingly broken wikipedia mod culture has something to do with this.
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?
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
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
"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".
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,
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.
I don't think that it depends on them.
Then why are you asserting them?
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?
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.
In (1) the subject is the word "none". The word "us" is part of the prepositional phrase "of us".
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.
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 admitte...
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.
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...
(c) whether the information on the page is accurate.
Except not all topics and not all information are of equal interest to people.