3 ms·

I mean, yeah, but Quillette is still a rag. It exists to exhaust people with the time, energy, and knowledge to debunk it so people without that will be duped b

I mean, yeah, but Quillette is still a rag. It exists to exhaust people with the time, energy, and knowledge to debunk it so people without that will be duped by its arguments that only seem reasonable on the surface and one or two layers below, right above the trash. Quillette is like a knowledge slot machine to people who want to be well-informed but don't have the resources to do it without leaning on others who do. It lures you in with surface plausibility. I think you edited after my response below, so: If your words are true, the entire thing is discredited. It feels hand-wavy, so do you have any examples or references? The article I linked above has supported references and links, and it's quite long. You're saying it's a complete fraud?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mancerayder 8y ago
You've provided no evidence for your claims at all, only one post-comment-edit and a repetition of your ad-hominems against the publication. It's bad because it's bad, it's a fraud because it's a fraud, and when asked to clarify what's fraudulent about it, we're told there are "gradients."
- Kye 8y ago
  It's the same tired old conservative talking points with the edges filed down. It's futile. People believe what they want to believe. When they're ready to question it, they can see all that's been written over the last couple decades about conservative media. I am not re-treading it for the nth time just because someone repackaged the same stuff for a new generation. I've been down this road. It goes nowhere at best, and turns into demon threads (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-threads https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-thre...) in the average case.
DanBC 8y ago
This article by a quillete editor but written for WSJ is horseshit. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-visit-to-islamic-england-1535581583 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-visit-to-islamic-england-1535... Note the correction: > An earlier version mistakenly identified the public context of a sign that declared “Alcohol-restricted zone.” Such signs refer to a prohibition on public drinking and appear in many English neighborhoods, irrespective of Muslim population. That's what you get when islamophobic idiots write articles about a country they don't understand. These signs really are common across England. There's one outside my house. (Muslim population in my street = 0, and in this part of town = < 2%). But the article is full of this kind of horseshit: "no one makes eye contact" - yep, this happens, but it happens between everyone regardless of religion: we don't talk to each other in the south. About the only thing that's true is that some mosques distribute unpleasant material. I'd ban it, but then I'd also ban this shitty article. Mr Ngo is a hypocrite for calling out these pamphlets while writing material as objectionable himself.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mancerayder 8y ago

You've provided no evidence for your claims at all, only one post-comment-edit and a repetition of your ad-hominems against the publication. It's bad because it's bad, it's a fraud because it's a fraud, and when asked to clarify what's fraudulent about it, we're told there are "gradients."

Kye 8y ago
It's the same tired old conservative talking points with the edges filed down. It's futile. People believe what they want to believe. When they're ready to question it, they can see all that's been written over the last couple decades about conservative media. I am not re-treading it for the nth time just because someone repackaged the same stuff for a new generation. I've been down this road. It goes nowhere at best, and turns into demon threads (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-threads https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-thre...) in the average case.

DanBC 8y ago

This article by a quillete editor but written for WSJ is horseshit. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-visit-to-islamic-england-1535581583 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-visit-to-islamic-england-1535... Note the correction: > An earlier version mistakenly identified the public context of a sign that declared “Alcohol-restricted zone.” Such signs refer to a prohibition on public drinking and appear in many English neighborhoods, irrespective of Muslim population. That's what you get when islamophobic idiots write articles about a country they don't understand. These signs really are common across England. There's one outside my house. (Muslim population in my street = 0, and in this part of town = < 2%). But the article is full of this kind of horseshit: "no one makes eye contact" - yep, this happens, but it happens between everyone regardless of religion: we don't talk to each other in the south. About the only thing that's true is that some mosques distribute unpleasant material. I'd ban it, but then I'd also ban this shitty article. Mr Ngo is a hypocrite for calling out these pamphlets while writing material as objectionable himself.