3 ms·

OP is correct if the strongest rebuttal to the argument being put forward is semantic pedantry. You can spot stupid[*] replies miles away when there's no attem

OP is correct if the strongest rebuttal to the argument being put forward is semantic pedantry. You can spot stupid[*] replies miles away when there's no attempt to engage with the substance of the argument. [*]: Yes, stupid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc

macmcirish 4y ago
I don’t think it’s unfair to call out the first sentence of the argument, if you’re trying to persuade with several paragraphs of content and the very first sentence has a gross error, it transcends pedantry in my opinion. Rather, I think it makes the original argument look irrational if they have an extreme exaggeration if they have to use that to make their point.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  It's a typo. There isn't some kind of grave epistemic problem with the first sentence where everything that follows is predicated on a falsehood. We don't discard the contents of books just because the publication has a typo.
  - d23 4y ago
    Eating a gallon of motor oil a day is great for your digestive system. Now let me tell you about my other nutritional insights.
  - macmcirish 4y ago
    As noted in their other reply, it is actually not a typo. A central part of their point is in that first sentence they note the extra eyes on marginalized people making more money than other marginalized people, but it’s blown out to being extremely exaggerated. So yes, I think there is a “grave epistemic problem” with the first sentence that hurts the argument and its credibility as a whole, without having to get into the details of the argument itself. That you called the first replier “stupid” or even their argument “stupid” is wholly unjustified.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      The charitable interpretation of the argument was the exponent was intended to be a multiple of two. That's reasonable when comparing salaries in big tech to elsewhere, and I agree with this. The fact nobody will engage in the good faith argument, but rather take the least charitable interpretation and spew verbal diarrhea around the assertion instead of directly addressing it is further evidence of the point.
d23 4y ago
The entire argument rests on a calculation that a third grader can see is absurd.
- ricardo81 4y ago
  Sorry pal, did someone reveal what X was to you? Guess it's a bit like the Twitter algo then.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  Restated: What I get from this whole experience is big tech employees, likely on a wage double their national average, are able to communicate more widely to the world about their disenfranchisement about being unemployed than others made unemployed who are not. Now that I've done the hard work of fixing the typo that apparently invalidates the argument, it ought to be trivial to provide a counter-argument.

macmcirish 4y ago

I don’t think it’s unfair to call out the first sentence of the argument, if you’re trying to persuade with several paragraphs of content and the very first sentence has a gross error, it transcends pedantry in my opinion. Rather, I think it makes the original argument look irrational if they have an extreme exaggeration if they have to use that to make their point.

infamouscow 4y ago
It's a typo. There isn't some kind of grave epistemic problem with the first sentence where everything that follows is predicated on a falsehood. We don't discard the contents of books just because the publication has a typo.
- d23 4y ago
  Eating a gallon of motor oil a day is great for your digestive system. Now let me tell you about my other nutritional insights.
- macmcirish 4y ago
  As noted in their other reply, it is actually not a typo. A central part of their point is in that first sentence they note the extra eyes on marginalized people making more money than other marginalized people, but it’s blown out to being extremely exaggerated. So yes, I think there is a “grave epistemic problem” with the first sentence that hurts the argument and its credibility as a whole, without having to get into the details of the argument itself. That you called the first replier “stupid” or even their argument “stupid” is wholly unjustified.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    The charitable interpretation of the argument was the exponent was intended to be a multiple of two. That's reasonable when comparing salaries in big tech to elsewhere, and I agree with this. The fact nobody will engage in the good faith argument, but rather take the least charitable interpretation and spew verbal diarrhea around the assertion instead of directly addressing it is further evidence of the point.

d23 4y ago

The entire argument rests on a calculation that a third grader can see is absurd.

ricardo81 4y ago
Sorry pal, did someone reveal what X was to you? Guess it's a bit like the Twitter algo then.
infamouscow 4y ago
Restated: What I get from this whole experience is big tech employees, likely on a wage double their national average, are able to communicate more widely to the world about their disenfranchisement about being unemployed than others made unemployed who are not. Now that I've done the hard work of fixing the typo that apparently invalidates the argument, it ought to be trivial to provide a counter-argument.