3 ms·

> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though.... I r

> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though.... I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer. Note also: I may not hold a position on object level matters - me pushing back on a claim should not be interpreted as a belief in the opposite (as is usually the case, in my experience). > ...we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post. You can certainly conclude that, and even assert it, but this does not make it true. > On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person. This is my intent and desire, but whether this is a group undertaking in fact I cannot say, I can only hope. > I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks! I would hope that it would help: the goal is be to highlight that perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important, but whether I am successful in the slightest I do not know - if forced, I would predict that I am not successful, based on hundreds if not thousands of similar conversations. This seems to be a very difficult nut to crack, but then I don't think that should be very surprising. If you don't mind: could you state explicitly whether you will answer the questions I stated above (physically answer them, in this thread)?

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
>> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though.... >I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer. and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts. >perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility?
- mistermann 5y ago
  > and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts. My initial grievance is here: >> (someone) The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. > (me) Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)? Here one human is accusing another human (or several), whom he doesn't know, of speaking deliberately deceivingly, making ~invalid associations between things, etc - a not abnormal interpretation of this might be something like "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he's trying to tell a tall tale, he might even be a conspiracy theorist". At the very least, there's little acknowledgement I see about the complexities and uncertainty involved. This is but one of my overall complaints about culture war arguments, people play so fast and loose with the truth. If there's a post about computing on HN, attention to detail and emphasis on correctness is bountiful and uncontroversial. But in a culture war conversation, I proclaim that the inverse is true - and, I also think this abstract phenomenon is a big deal in the big scheme of things. > Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility? Of course, why not. But you brought up solipsism earlier: >> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

>> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though.... >I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer. and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts. >perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility?

mistermann 5y ago
> and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts. My initial grievance is here: >> (someone) The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. > (me) Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)? Here one human is accusing another human (or several), whom he doesn't know, of speaking deliberately deceivingly, making ~invalid associations between things, etc - a not abnormal interpretation of this might be something like "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he's trying to tell a tall tale, he might even be a conspiracy theorist". At the very least, there's little acknowledgement I see about the complexities and uncertainty involved. This is but one of my overall complaints about culture war arguments, people play so fast and loose with the truth. If there's a post about computing on HN, attention to detail and emphasis on correctness is bountiful and uncontroversial. But in a culture war conversation, I proclaim that the inverse is true - and, I also think this abstract phenomenon is a big deal in the big scheme of things. > Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility? Of course, why not. But you brought up solipsism earlier: >> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself. Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.