4 ms·

> Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. I stopped at the second paragraph. Then, you aren't actually interested in rigorous debate, challenging your ideas? Why a

> Sorry, I'm not reading all of that. I stopped at the second paragraph. Then, you aren't actually interested in rigorous debate, challenging your ideas? Why are you even here? You have an opportunity here, someone that might have completely different ideas from you, and repeatedly engages with you in good faith in spite of your insults, and your answer is "tldr." Forgive me if I doubt your commitment to the spirit of the value MIT claims to espouse regarding the importance of having these kinds of conversations. > , then define cancelled as "the thing that happened to Dorian Abbot" Great! Nothing really bad happened to Dorian Abbot. He got to give his speech and now has defined his career around opposing affirmative action. So, why were you using him as an example earlier as a counter point to me as the negative potentials of not tolerating the intolerant? > The thing that should be getting discussed is whether or not what happened to him should have happened to him. But nothing bad happened to him. Your video link is my favorite ever instance of irony I've ever encountered on this site. In it, Feynman says "you know all the names for that bird, but you know nothing about that bird... People tell me 'did you hear about Jackson Fleugrn experiment?' well no, what's that, can you explain it? I get in trouble cause I never learn the names of things." You've been asked, what does "cancelled" mean, you answered, "Whatever happened to that guy." Yeah, what happened to that guy? "He got cancelled!"

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. It's disrespectful. The argument you're trying to formulate here is that being uninvited as a speaker at the grammy's isn't a big deal because the person was able to give their speech somewhere else in front of a completely different audience eventually. That's not how that works, the talk he was uninvited from is considered an honor in his profession. Then you try to imply he benefited from it, so why is everyone opposed to it? That's akin to arguing that the reasons for naming a boy Sue is valid parenting advice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s 2:26 timestamp listen to the end to understand the point fully. per the link about naming, I'm not surprised you misunderstood what Feynman was saying, but that's not my problem.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. You’re willing to spend the time to write 12 replies, but you’re too busy to define the terms you use? Defining terms (especially when they are highly politically charged) allows everyone to get on the same page. Playing games with your terminology to the point you admit they are tautological is the definition of disingenuous discourse.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    What you quoted was me explaining why I won't spend and hour on a novel-length response. If you're going to try and bring me to task, atleast be accurate.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      No one was asking you for a novel-length response. Took me 2 minutes to read lol. If you don’t want to read something, you don’t have to. If you don’t want to respond to someone who has taken the time to respond to you, don’t. But taking time to reply only to say you don’t have time to reply is a lie. You want to reply, and you have plenty of time. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t reply. If you had better things to do, you’d be doing them. Just define the terms you use; that you don’t allows you to slip around the debate. You’ve spent far more time dodging questions and rationalizing your dodges than it would have taken to just define the terms you use. Very hard for you to explain how someone was “cancelled” when they are standing on a soapbox and their message is getting out to a huge audience. Really cuts against your argument, so it’s not a surprise you want to hand-wave your way through that (“it’s tautological!”).
      - 4y ago

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. It's disrespectful. The argument you're trying to formulate here is that being uninvited as a speaker at the grammy's isn't a big deal because the person was able to give their speech somewhere else in front of a completely different audience eventually. That's not how that works, the talk he was uninvited from is considered an honor in his profession. Then you try to imply he benefited from it, so why is everyone opposed to it? That's akin to arguing that the reasons for naming a boy Sue is valid parenting advice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gbtm-93oqE&t=146s 2:26 timestamp listen to the end to understand the point fully. per the link about naming, I'm not surprised you misunderstood what Feynman was saying, but that's not my problem.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ModernMech 4y ago
> Posting such a response is attempting to impose upon me time that I am not willing to spend on you. You’re willing to spend the time to write 12 replies, but you’re too busy to define the terms you use? Defining terms (especially when they are highly politically charged) allows everyone to get on the same page. Playing games with your terminology to the point you admit they are tautological is the definition of disingenuous discourse.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  What you quoted was me explaining why I won't spend and hour on a novel-length response. If you're going to try and bring me to task, atleast be accurate.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    No one was asking you for a novel-length response. Took me 2 minutes to read lol. If you don’t want to read something, you don’t have to. If you don’t want to respond to someone who has taken the time to respond to you, don’t. But taking time to reply only to say you don’t have time to reply is a lie. You want to reply, and you have plenty of time. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t reply. If you had better things to do, you’d be doing them. Just define the terms you use; that you don’t allows you to slip around the debate. You’ve spent far more time dodging questions and rationalizing your dodges than it would have taken to just define the terms you use. Very hard for you to explain how someone was “cancelled” when they are standing on a soapbox and their message is getting out to a huge audience. Really cuts against your argument, so it’s not a surprise you want to hand-wave your way through that (“it’s tautological!”).
    - 4y ago