4 ms·

> Yes, but I will not share. I'd been wondering whether you were arguing in good faith at all. Thank you for confirming that you were not, and goodbye. [furth

• mistermann 2y ago
  Declaring victory based on a reductive, speculative, subjective opinion. This is hard to compete with when the judging is rigged!
  • gjm11 2y ago
    I wasn't declaring victory. I think that whole way of thinking about discussions is toxic and stupid. When it turns out that one party hasn't been arguing in good faith and that there isn't much likelihood of anything useful coming from further discussion, no one wins. But that's where we seem to be.
    • mistermann 2y ago
      Would it be cheating for me to point out that you are speaking untruthfully (though likely honestly, at the real time level at least)? I think you are smart enough to realize I am technically (though not culturally) correct. Your move.
      • gjm11 2y ago
        > cheating ... move It's that discussion-as-competitive-game framing again! Again, I think that's a bad way to look at it. Anyway: (1) it is always possible that what I said was wrong, (2) I am not currently aware that it was, (3) which may or may not indicate that I am not "smart enough", and (4) as already indicated, I do not wish to continue this discussion any further.
        • mistermann 2y ago
          > it is always possible that what I said was wrong I can't remember if I've ever gotten anyone to admit this before. Looks like my intuition was correct!
          • gjm11 2y ago
            More universal truth than admission. It's always possible that something, anything, I've said is wrong. If you spend most of your time in discussions with people who don't recognize that then either (1) you're choosing the wrong people to talk to, or (2) there's something about the way you're talking to them that discourages them from acknowledging that pretty straightforward fact. (Framing your discussion as a competitive game in which it makes sense to "declare victory" etc., as you have done here, might do it. People are generally less willing to do things that feel like getting beaten.) Dunno what intuition you're referring to, so I can't comment on whether it's correct.
            • mistermann 2y ago
              I get the sense that you are implying that your approach here is necessarily more optimal than mine in an absolute sense (as opposed to superior in a normative, "Overton Window" sense...I can easily acknowledge you are the victor there) - regardless: do you believe that it is? Because optimality in an absolute sense is my core concern. I have a serious issue with this norm of strongly implied "facts", and then (usually after a multi-comment challenge) a casual "I could be wrong" or "It's just my opinion" as a sort of rhetorical get out of jail free card. I consider this behavior dangerous and irresponsible, especially as an aspect of the default metaphysical framework (aka: story) of a culture: science/scientism, that claims superiority to all others (but refuses to defend that claim, contrary to its scriptures). Though, I do not think you do it with (substantial) conscious intent or maliciousness, fwiw - tautologically, everyone is doing their current best. But being a non-determinist, (some) free will believer, I think people can improve - and, I believe people can be made to improve, even against their will. Breaking the will of one Human is hard, breaking the will of millions/billions of huma s at massive scale, that's a whole other story. I believe it can be done though!