4 ms·

>> Who is the "we" that "establishes" things, and decides what information constitutes "evidence" and what does not? > LMAO. Not an answer to the question. I

>> 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?

notahacker 4y ago
> If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to, I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text. If you're merely feigning ignorance of the basic syntax of the English language as a rhetorical flourish, it's... also not impressive. > What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop - > 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. Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists. And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly. But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to I realize that. Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to. > ...I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text. I have more certainty than you. I believe I am correct, and I encourage you to demonstrate that you are correct (you do possess this knowledge, and can explain how), or that I am incorrect (in presuming you are speculating). >> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop It's a popular meme and is often used to represent victory in internet disagreements, but it is not nearly as magical as it seems. After all, I too can post links to various memes and declare victory too. We are in disagreement over a precise point of contention, that meme is not applicable. But feel free to pretend that it is. > Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists. A problem: you are evaluating a simulation of reality, not reality itself. You do not actually have knowledge of the activities of all these people. It is amazing that conspiracy theorists get laughed at by normies suffering from delusions of omniscience. Amazing, but fitting in a way. > And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly. I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots (they are humans after all), and I've made no claim about them having superpowers. Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning. > But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of. And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15. Dare to dream!

notahacker 4y ago

> If you have an aversion to answering questions that's fine, but I'd prefer an acknowledgement Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to, I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text. If you're merely feigning ignorance of the basic syntax of the English language as a rhetorical flourish, it's... also not impressive. > What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop - > 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. Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists. And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly. But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of.

mistermann 4y ago
> Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] might actually be intended as an answer to a "who is the 'we'" question quoted directly above it, not a separate sentence fragment for you to come up with an obtuse response to I realize that. Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to. > ...I'm not sure you're really equipped to pass judgement on other people's thinking skills through the medium of text. I have more certainty than you. I believe I am correct, and I encourage you to demonstrate that you are correct (you do possess this knowledge, and can explain how), or that I am incorrect (in presuming you are speculating). >> What's cute about it, and what's the problem with including links that are relevant to a discussion? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop It's a popular meme and is often used to represent victory in internet disagreements, but it is not nearly as magical as it seems. After all, I too can post links to various memes and declare victory too. We are in disagreement over a precise point of contention, that meme is not applicable. But feel free to pretend that it is. > Ah... an actual argument in favour of conspiracy theorists. Trouble is, whilst conspiracy theorists had the ability to take the Epstein story very seriously, so did courts, the police, editors of mainstream newspapers of all persuasions and the millions of sheeple that need to wake up, so it's clear that the ability to take it very seriously is not a skill unique to conspiracy theorists. A problem: you are evaluating a simulation of reality, not reality itself. You do not actually have knowledge of the activities of all these people. It is amazing that conspiracy theorists get laughed at by normies suffering from delusions of omniscience. Amazing, but fitting in a way. > And many conspiracy theorists - at least those of a certain political persuasion - also had the ability to take very seriously the claim that Donald Trump had been fighting a secret decades long battle against paedophile cabals that would be resolved in a judgement day called the Storm, as soon as those pesky fake ballots had been sorted out. I'm not sure the ability to believe something about paedophile rings most other people also are able to believe is really a superpower which makes up for believing in stuff about paedophile rings which didn't happen and was never going to happen because it was utterly silly. I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots (they are humans after all), and I've made no claim about them having superpowers. Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning. > But hey, maybe the Storm happened and disputing the fact that Trump is actually acting POTUS and rounding up Deep State paedophiles for execution as we speak is just overconfidence in the wrong sources, a form of naive realism no conspiracy theorist could ever be guilty of. And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15. Dare to dream!