Ocrassus posted:

Guys I think he took my 'academically inferior' comment too seriously and now he's above replying to any of my posts.

I mean I explained it verbally and demonstrated it using an uncertainty model. Do I need a PHD in posting?

eXXon posted:

Oh, I get it. This was all an April Fool's joke.

Arglebargle III posted:

Why isn't this thread gold yet?

Another post!

quote:

In addition, many cranks:

1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
3. compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, frequently:

1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

RealityApologist posted:

If I made a mistake here its one of interpretation. I didn't mean to lie or evade. I'm still struggling to parse the distinction you are drawing.

quote:

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, frequently:

1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

RealityApologist posted:

What? Where did I say anything like this? I explicitly define nepotism in terms of preferrential treatment. Its the second sentence in the essay.

quote:

Other things equal, people tend towards a bias in hiring and preferentially treating their family and friends.

RealityApologist posted:

^^ wtf is going on


If I said "a bias in hiring and otherwise preferentially treating family and friends" would it be more clear? I was trying to cut words out.

The accusation was that I'm not considering cases of inequitably treating members of one's own strata, but the whole point here is to define explicitly the extension and degree of the strata. If I'm preferring to only engage with on group exclusively (as demonstrated my Strangecoin transactions), that's preferential and inequitable treatment of members of my own strata.

I'm not sure what I'm missing.

RealityApologist posted:

Appealing to a ceteris paribus clause = evidence of privilege. Yowza, I don't even know how to respond to that.

I mean you're right, other things aren't always equal, but that doesn't help much in defining the problem. Given the definition, we can explicitly deal with cases where other things aren't equal. Strangecoin gives an explicit way to discuss the preferrential treatment of members of one's own strata without depending on the ceteris paribus clause.

Obdicut posted:

Why would you say that, instead of just saying 'without all other things being equal'?

RealityApologist posted:

I don't know what you mean by "as bad as", or why that is relevant to the argument I make. Is DOMA or DADT as bad as Jim Crow? If not, does that mean we shouldn't care about the former?

ryde posted:

Uh, wow.

Guys, I don't think that Eripsa is saying that tools is literally as important as gender for identity. He's also not saying that "cyborg discrimination" or discrimination based on tool usage is literally as important an issue as discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, class, etc. He's simply trying to point out that they have some similarities. At least, thats what I'm getting from all this. I'm not sure where people are reading the "People being hostile because I use google glass is one of the most important issues facing us today," thing.

Wanamingo posted:

I was gonna write up another bullshit paragraph about tech pride but I can't think of anything right now so instead I'll just say that to put cyborg discrimination in the same ballpark as LGBTQ issues, let alone directly comparing them, shows an utterly insane amount of privilege.

RealityApologist posted:

quote:

can you please refrain from comparing your weird techno fetishism to the rights that a bunch of people are denied on a regular basis?

Thank you

I was making an argument about the importance of advocacy and political activism in the face of overwhelming political odds. The comparison was completely appropriate.

I also think it's demeaning to dismiss basic transhumanist principles as merely a "fetish". Its interesting that you would use the term in defense of gay rights, a group which historically was dismissed on exactly the same grounds-- that homosexuality was merely a fetish to be scorned instead of a legitimate aspect of one's identity. As I'm sure you know, transhumanism has deep intellectual ties to gender studies and queer theory (see Donna Haraway, Judith Butler, et al). I have no doubt that all the talk in this thread of "Glassholes" are just the early stirrings of a coming culture war over the rights of cyborgs as a protected class, and that the broad outlines of this culture war will bear a strong resemblance to the political struggles of the LGBT community over the last 30 years.

So it's really disappointing to see you defend gay rights by attacking cyborgs and hurling the same kind of ignorant, dehumanizing rhetoric that the gay community has fought so hard against. It shows just how much of a struggle we have before us.

SedanChair posted:

Hey Eripsa you want to see some actual loving cyborg discrimination you sheltered lunkhead? How about the employment rate of war vet amputees with prosthetic limbs? You think maybe that's a little more real than me thinking you're an rear end in a top hat because you point Glass at me?

JawnV6 posted:

SedanChair posted:

Physically more employable or more likely to actually be hired?

Obdicut posted:

Wikipedia isn't an example of the commons, though. It's not a resource that can be depleted. How can you not even know that basic concept?

RealityApologist posted:

No, I'm not saying I'm an extremist, especially about the strangecoin stuff which I'm not at all confident about.

RealityApologist/Eripsa, two years ago, on page 21 posted:

I completely accept the accusation that I'm advocating for a kind of extremism.

I think the state of affairs warrants extremism.

RealityApologist posted:

I'm certainly extremist in some of my views, sure. But SedanChair is right to suggest, and the research I point to supports, that I'm not being an extremist about strangecoin, mostly because I'm not at all confident about it.

There are some parts of these threads that I am quite confident about, but the proposal isn't one of them.

RealityApologist posted:

I'm saying extremism is relative to particular beliefs. One isn't just an extremist simpliciter, they are an extremist relative to this or that belief or position. I'm not an extremist about Strangecoin, because I'm not confident in it and I'm interested in correction and improvement. Extremeists don't correct their beliefs because they are extremely confident in them. That doesn't characterize my belief in the Strangecoin proposal.

RealityApologist posted:

If you look at the thread, I did say that, apparently as you were writing up your response. Again, this isn't me changing my mind or pretending I didn't say something I did, this is a mistaken interpretation.

RealityApologist posted:

No, I'm not saying I'm an extremist, especially about the strangecoin stuff which I'm not at all confident about.

RealityApologist posted:

In the original AE threads I was raging for all sorts of radical political ends that I thought motivated AE and served as it's theoretical underpinnings. Most of these views are very radical but I don't feel very confident about them and so aren't extremist views. Others I feel more confident about, and some of the theoretical basis for AE I feel very confidently about and I'm quite extremist.

But again, the claim from SedanChair was about whether my presentation in this and the AE thread was characteristic of an extremist, and my answer was no, because extremism is different from being a crank, and I'm really playing the latter role.

This is such a minor interpretive mistake that it's silly to have it. But you're calling me a liar, and its the kind of accusation that raises the hostility and tension in the thread, and I'm trying to resolve it by clearly explaining myself

BernieLomax posted:

I was struck by you focusing on proving how it is linear instead of asking him how it was non-linear, only for accusing him for moving the goalposts when you finally understood what he said.

Slanderer posted:

Also, to ask yet again, why the gently caress is it nonlinear? That's not what nonlinear means. Stop using technical words you don't loving understand.

Zodium posted:

I think saying that nobody is getting any Mr. Nice Guy awards is putting it rather generously. For instance, let's look at your first post in this thread, from page one.

RealityApologist posted:

That's right, my mistake.

jre posted:

Oh dear. You're resorting to posting meaningless word salad again because you don't have a good answer. This is just as embarrassing as your attempt to go , "Yes but what is 'science' really" when people pointed out that you didn't seem to understand the basics of the scientific method.

A lot of the flaws in your proposal are really basic mistakes caused by your lack of economic knowledge. Your mis-use of tragedy of the commons was an embarrassment you could have avoided if you had done any reading at all in subject you are supposedly going to make amazing advances in.

If you are this oblivious I'm out, good luck with your 'research'

Best Friends posted:

If you don't like people being less than friendly to people these are a poor choice of forums to read.

Who What Now posted:

Now, now, this isn't a contest over which autistic person is better at understanding human interactions.

RealityApologist posted:

Sigh. You are all conflating criticism of me with criticism of my ideas, and attributing the mistake to me.

You are all pretty loving dense sometimes, too.