4 ms·

> Not gonna lie, if you're genuinely struggling to understand that a sentence that begins "We are HNers participating in the discussion" [emphasis original] mig

> 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
> Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to. Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots You: "I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots" These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of sterling original Epstein research by conspiracy theorists to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting that than 1001 tangents. I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me, never mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously. Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!? Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience". Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds. Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases... > Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning. > And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15 Yeah, no. (Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post. Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you actually have the need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots Modifying claims after the fact isn't exactly good faith. > These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of conspiracy theorists' early Epstein insights to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting than 1001 tangents. I didn't present 1001 tangents. > I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me Your claim implied that you had consensus support on HN. > ever mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously. "take X seriously" is not a True/False binary. > Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!? If this was necessarily(!) true (which you do not actually know, in fact), it would be literally not possible for something nefarious to happen with the media. > Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience". You have made several comprehensive claims about the nature of journalist coverage of this story. You are speculating, necessarily. > Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds. Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example). > Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases... Try not attributing things to me that I haven't done. > Yeah, no. Would you enjoy if I claimed again that this is your wish, despite it not actually being true? > Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post. a) Child molesters exist - therefore opinions on child abuse vary. b) Not all people took the Epstein thing identically seriously (conspiracy theorists are generally extremely concerned about child abuse, based on how they talk anyways) - therefore opinions on child abuse vary. c) Considering the nature of this crime, if compared to other instances of child abuse, MANY people thought the amount and style of media coverage of this story was inconsistent. It is physically possible for it to be inconsistent, whether it was is subjective, and would/should require a substantial amount of work before passing any sort of serious judgment. > Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you have more need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...) Espousing acceptance is not required for variance - even lesser outrage is a variation. My main overall concern is this: the degree of actual interest the public has in the integrity of very important institutions is not a universal constant, nor is the capability people have to exercise sound judgment. If there was something bad going on behind the scenes in this case or others, the ease with which bad actors can get away with various bad things is a function of the quality of the public, and the quality of journalism (something that MANY people, not just conspiracy theorists, have commented negatively on). Things could be very, very bad, and we may have very little way to know it with certainty. To me, this is a big deal, and I find it rather disgusting that the default view seems to range from mild interest to falling of the chair laughing at people who do care.

notahacker 4y ago

> Feel free to explain how you acquired knowledge of consensus belief among the people you are referring to. Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots You: "I don't deny that many conspiracy theorists are idiots" These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of sterling original Epstein research by conspiracy theorists to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting that than 1001 tangents. I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me, never mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously. Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!? Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience". Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds. Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases... > Manufacturing strawmen, attributing them to your counterpart, and then knocking them down is fun and popular, but it is not sound reasoning. > And hey, maybe you and your crew's dream will come true and the age of consent will be lowered to 15 Yeah, no. (Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post. Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you actually have the need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...)

mistermann 4y ago
> Me: various arguments to the effect that the fact that conspiracy theorists may believe in Epstein Island (much like many people who aren't conspiracy theorists) doesn't give any reason to stop regarding many of them as idiots Modifying claims after the fact isn't exactly good faith. > These statements seem pretty aligned, and as I said from the very beginning, if you had the evidence of conspiracy theorists' early Epstein insights to actually rebut the former statement, you'd be better off presenting than 1001 tangents. I didn't present 1001 tangents. > I've no idea why you believe I need to have established consensus belief in all of Hacker News to use the word "we" about you and me Your claim implied that you had consensus support on HN. > ever mind need to know "all the activities of all those people" to know something as trivially simple to establish as the media took Epstein Island seriously. "take X seriously" is not a True/False binary. > Come on, you're not honestly claiming that one needs omniscience to have any confidence that Epstein Island was reported on by seriously by mainstream media are you!?!? If this was necessarily(!) true (which you do not actually know, in fact), it would be literally not possible for something nefarious to happen with the media. > Funnily enough, you seem happy not only making similar generalised references statements to the actions of normies and conspiracy theorists alike yourself, but insist on going one step further and insisting that you have insight into the former's "delusions of omniscience". You have made several comprehensive claims about the nature of journalist coverage of this story. You are speculating, necessarily. > Normies are too stuck in a simulation of reality to have any confidence in their faculties telling them media did, in fact report seriously on Epstein, but you can trust your insights into the deepest delusions of their minds. Omniscience isn't required to tell when a human is running on heuristics, at least under certain scenarios (claims of knowledge that require omniscience, for example). > Perhaps, in your simulation of reality, this seems like a sound logical argument. To me, it sounds like you should probably read your link about cognitive biases... Try not attributing things to me that I haven't done. > Yeah, no. Would you enjoy if I claimed again that this is your wish, despite it not actually being true? > Not gonna lie, I'm not the participant in this exchange whose views on consent are so unconventional they were babbling about how opinions on child abuse were "varied" and some people were "more accepting" in their last post. a) Child molesters exist - therefore opinions on child abuse vary. b) Not all people took the Epstein thing identically seriously (conspiracy theorists are generally extremely concerned about child abuse, based on how they talk anyways) - therefore opinions on child abuse vary. c) Considering the nature of this crime, if compared to other instances of child abuse, MANY people thought the amount and style of media coverage of this story was inconsistent. It is physically possible for it to be inconsistent, whether it was is subjective, and would/should require a substantial amount of work before passing any sort of serious judgment. > Can't say I've experienced people espousing acceptance of child abusers in normie-land, but if you have more need to seek such people out, your victims have my sympathies...) Espousing acceptance is not required for variance - even lesser outrage is a variation. My main overall concern is this: the degree of actual interest the public has in the integrity of very important institutions is not a universal constant, nor is the capability people have to exercise sound judgment. If there was something bad going on behind the scenes in this case or others, the ease with which bad actors can get away with various bad things is a function of the quality of the public, and the quality of journalism (something that MANY people, not just conspiracy theorists, have commented negatively on). Things could be very, very bad, and we may have very little way to know it with certainty. To me, this is a big deal, and I find it rather disgusting that the default view seems to range from mild interest to falling of the chair laughing at people who do care.