4 ms·

Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. The possibility that claims about Ep

Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously

mistermann 4y ago
> Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ > The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
- notahacker 4y ago
  Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false, and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then, it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... [1]https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false... "Touching" a story (True/False) is not the same as a story being reported on in a proper manner. Printing one story in the middle of one newspaper technically satisfies "touched". (Note: I have not made a claim that only one story on Epstein was printed, I am only describing what would be required to satisfy "touched"). Also: while choosing a maximally absurd complaint (that isn't even believed by conspiracy theorists) is an excellent rhetorical technique, it may not be so useful for engaging in truthful, good faith discussion. > ...and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then... Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? Please explicitly state the person or organization that performs this duty that you are referring to. > ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... Can you explain what the intent of this is, and what it is you are referring to by "Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions" and "before he was involved in cheese pizza" and ""that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form"? My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
    - notahacker 4y ago
      > Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? LMAO. We are HNers participating in a discussion, in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things) I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases. (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it) > ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... > My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations. We're in a subthread about whether we should be updating our priors on conspiracy theories in general based on revelations about Epstein. I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases. In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories. Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

mistermann 4y ago

> Now they believe that because some victims came forward and didn't get dismissed, and the mainstream media reported on it. https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ > The possibility that claims about Epstein might have been laughed at if the story had been broken by people who normally focus on talking about crisis actors and chemtrails but those people didn't break the story because they didn't know anything about it (and were too busy talking about crisis actors and chemtrails) isn't a particularly good argument for taking that group more seriously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...

notahacker 4y ago
Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false, and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then, it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... [1]https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/ https://ml4a.github.io/ml4a/how_neural_networks_are_trained/
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Since it's established that the canard that the mainstream wouldn't touch a story like Epstein's is false... "Touching" a story (True/False) is not the same as a story being reported on in a proper manner. Printing one story in the middle of one newspaper technically satisfies "touched". (Note: I have not made a claim that only one story on Epstein was printed, I am only describing what would be required to satisfy "touched"). Also: while choosing a maximally absurd complaint (that isn't even believed by conspiracy theorists) is an excellent rhetorical technique, it may not be so useful for engaging in truthful, good faith discussion. > ...and we haven't established any evidence of the non-mainstream being so well-informed and independent from the news cycle they had his number long before then... Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? Please explicitly state the person or organization that performs this duty that you are referring to. > ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... Can you explain what the intent of this is, and what it is you are referring to by "Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions" and "before he was involved in cheese pizza" and ""that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form"? My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? LMAO. We are HNers participating in a discussion, in which you appear to be taking issue with the point I made that Epstein offers no reason to update our priors on conspiracy theorists knowing things the mainstream media doesn't because Epstein was unmasked by lawyers, police and mainstream media, not conspiracy theorists. (And mainstream media did not, as far as I'm aware, rush to insist he couldn't possibly have done such awful things) I presume if you felt evidence to the contrary existed - that people who were onto Epstein were pooh-poohed as conspiracy theorists until the truth came out - you'd have offered me that as a counter argument rather than a list of links about heuristics and cognitive biases. (If actually do have the evidence, I apologise for the excessively charitable assumption about your understanding of how to engage in truthful, good-faith discussion and look forward to seeing it) > ...it'd be a lot more interesting to engage with earnest arguments that Epstein was framed, or that there's new evidence Epstein was involved with controlled demolitions people were talking about before he was involved in cheese pizza[1], than "that's just your opinion, man" in nerdsnipe form... > My intuition is that you are representing that conspiracy theorists (or perhaps even me) believes such things, or has made such claims, but I'd prefer if you explain yourself rather than me making speculative accusations. We're in a subthread about whether we should be updating our priors on conspiracy theories in general based on revelations about Epstein. I'm thinking an honest attempt to demonstrate alignment between Epstein revelations and popular conspiracy theories (that wasn't after, and derivative of mainstream reporting on Epstein) might be an more interesting counterargument than a list of articles about cognitive biases. In the absence of such evidence, I don't really see Epstein offering any reason for anyone to update any priors they have on popular conspiracy theories. Cute that someone that responds with a series of Wikipedia links is demanding explicit statements in response and lecturing me on truthful, good faith discussions though.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]