Comment by reliabilityguy
4 days ago
You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard because (1) it’s hard, and (2) it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.
Great!
If the US government explicitly stated their goal of promoting racist ideology, then it should not be hard to find a video clip of a video conference, a published policy memo, or anything of the sorts, that states this. Not an interpretation written by a journalist of something, but a raw source. But, there is nothing.
All we have is articles written in media (which can be biased), which you parse with your own specific bias (so, it’s already bias(bias(rumor))), and you want me to accept it?
I’m sorry, but it sounds like BS.
> You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard
No, you have completely misunderstood.
> it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.
Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.
I really enjoy my friends description: He explained is as "I don't actually believe that Trump is a foreign asset. But given there's no daylight in between his behavior and the behavior of a foreign asset; you can just assume he is, and his decisions make sense." Feel free to substitute racist for asset if you'd like. The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.
Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.
> and you want me to accept it? I’m sorry, but it sounds like BS.
I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.
> No, you have completely misunderstood.
No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it, and that we can use deduction based on the incomplete evidence because it makes sense.
> Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.
What does it even mean? How can you explain root cause of something with heuristics?
> The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.
Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?
> Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.
So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?
> I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.
I do. I am open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".
> So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?
Yes, but that yes depends on your goals. Your name is reliabilityguy so I'm going to assume you've read the 500Mile email lore already. A responsible person will dig in and engage and try to figure out why emails only work for 500 miles. Even though that's clearly absurd, and they don't have any concrete evidence that's what's going on.
Which is exactly what you're doing. "Your evidence doesn't fit into my context or check my boxes so you obviously don't know anything!"
That's that's the behavior of children, and people who care more about proving their ego over learning something new. You could choose to ask open questions, or ignore people who aren't trying equall...
> Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?
> No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it,
> I do. I open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".
then from higher in the thread
> Show me the tweet please this is all I am asking
> So, basically, you are saying that they are openly racist?
> I didn’t make my mind. I’m very much against racism, and any other form of discrimination. I’m also against intellectually lazy forms of debate.
but mostly, you respond like an argumentive asshole. None of these are open or exploratory comments. They all seek to win the debate, not to learn anything.
I guess the end of it is; the conversation you have with someone is exactly on you as much as you want it to be. You say that you are, but you definitely are not understanding what I'm trying to explain. Right, doesn't matter in this context, so right or wrong, part of that is on me, and part of that is on you. Xkcd has a comic for you already https://xkcd.com/1984/ You're welcome to shout "WRONG" into the microphone before wandering off on a tangent. But you don't learn anything that way.
the 500 Mile email, in case you haven't read this lore already http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles
2 replies →