4 ms·

> 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_ne

> 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.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      >> Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? > LMAO. Not an answer to the question. If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement (just a request though, not a requirement). > We are HNers participating in a discussion... Well there's a problem: you do not actually know the degree to which other HN'ers agree with you. > ...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) You also do not have comprehensive knowledge of what has happened in the conspiracy theory world, or in the journalism world (including editorial decisions made behind closed doors). > 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. I've formed no strong belief because I understand the significance of the content of those links - you on the other hand seem to (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have not only formed a strong belief, but also mistaken it for knowledge. > (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) No charity required - I am not here to make friends. (Nice dig though! :) ) > 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. Making up stupid beliefs and implicitly attributing them to your ideological opponents is a demonstration of something: the poor thinking skills and dishonesty of the person who made the claim: you. > 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. At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting. > 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. What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    >> Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? > LMAO. Not an answer to the question. If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement (just a request though, not a requirement). > We are HNers participating in a discussion... Well there's a problem: you do not actually know the degree to which other HN'ers agree with you. > ...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) You also do not have comprehensive knowledge of what has happened in the conspiracy theory world, or in the journalism world (including editorial decisions made behind closed doors). > 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. I've formed no strong belief because I understand the significance of the content of those links - you on the other hand seem to (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have not only formed a strong belief, but also mistaken it for knowledge. > (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) No charity required - I am not here to make friends. (Nice dig though! :) ) > 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. Making up stupid beliefs and implicitly attributing them to your ideological opponents is a demonstration of something: the poor thinking skills and dishonesty of the person who made the claim: you. > 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. At the very least, conspiracy theorists had the ability to take this story very seriously, and discuss it in much greater depth than normies. Opinions vary on how seriously child abuse should be taken - some are strict, others are more accepting. > 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. What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]