3 ms·
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 disca
by 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 agoEating 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 agoAs 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 agoThe 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.