Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

[Dwarvenhobble]

What question am I supposed to have asked that would have made your obtuse shuffling from leading question or talking point to the next come together?

The one you were going to ask then just didn't come right out and ask.........

Yes. Because you wrote them. I didn't. And because you're leaving out a shit load of stuff, as an outsider looking in, I am coming to the conclusion that you're just making this up as you go. You've made your contempt for expertise and objective truth quite apparent.

Again are you really struggling to follow them? I'm not leaving much out. Only an easy basis for you to attempt to try and spot some kind of angle here lol.

Also It's more my contempt for blind faith in a set of results never being wrong or proved wrong. One of the core idea in a number of modern sciences these days is to explore the possibility you are wrong and how your results could be wrong. Without the ability to change long standing beliefs we end up with for example the belief Polymers can only be linear bonded chains rather than cyclic bonds in a 3D chain.

People should be encouraged to question because that's how we either develop understanding and come to new conclusions or are able to reconfirm the things we already know and know the evidence for it.

What if 1+1 = 2 only because we perceive it as such?
We can fire 2 electrons 1 at a time at 2 slots side by side and have both electrons register as going through both slots but it we put equipment on to watch it the electrons will only go through 1 slot each time.

My contempt for expertise is a contempt for the hubris that seems to accompany it sometimes.

 

[Trunkage]

The current condition is one where there's only a check to the people opposing the bullies, by making opposition to the political positions used to bully a bannable offense. (say for example, someone's bullying someone for misgendering someone, well, you can't have people defend that person, cause then you're defending misgendering and you'll get banned too, by removing the checks and balances you unleash the second combatant in the fight who up to that point wasn't allowed to fully participate, which will dampen the effect of the other person)

In your proposed system, not only does your hypothetical bullying not get quashed, but all death and rape threats and all calls to make people lose their jobs based upon 'bad behaviour.' The bullying about misgendered pronouns would get significantly worse, with a high likelihood for you getting fired by bosses who sees your mistreatment of transpeople. Even if they agree with you, they would HAVE to fire you based on public outcry.

As I said, I dont know why you wanted Cancel Culture to become more powerful.

 

[Trunkage]

Ok so in that sense the twitter is the megaphone. Does the megaphone company come and break your megaphone if they disagree with what you broadcast?

Sorry, should have put this with the other one.

Twitter isnt a megaphone. You didn't buy anything off Twitter. You DONT own the megaphone, Twitter does. At best its Twitter holding the megaphone while you are talking into it.

If you want Twitter to be a megaphone, you need to change the rules.

 

[Trunkage]

I don't think there's a "safe" way to handle it at all. If you disagree, that's fine. I just see it as too dangerous of a power to ever be used by anyone, for any reason.

So, let's not check facts...in case someone might get something wrong.

That's a no from me. Everyone should be checking each others work. It's called a dialogue. Deleting one side of the argument because they sometimes gets things wrong is a dangerous road.

 

[Buyetyen]

The one you were going to ask then just didn't come right out and ask.........

No, I think you misunderstood. I was saying I wanted you to not ask leading questions.

Again are you really struggling to follow them? I'm not leaving much out. Only an easy basis for you to attempt to try and spot some kind of angle here lol.

Also It's more my contempt for blind faith in a set of results never being wrong or proved wrong. One of the core idea in a number of modern sciences these days is to explore the possibility you are wrong and how your results could be wrong. Without the ability to change long standing beliefs we end up with for example the belief Polymers can only be linear bonded chains rather than cyclic bonds in a 3D chain.

People should be encouraged to question because that's how we either develop understanding and come to new conclusions or are able to reconfirm the things we already know and know the evidence for it.

What if 1+1 = 2 only because we perceive it as such?
We can fire 2 electrons 1 at a time at 2 slots side by side and have both electrons register as going through both slots but it we put equipment on to watch it the electrons will only go through 1 slot each time.

My contempt for expertise is a contempt for the hubris that seems to accompany it sometimes.

This by contrast is something I can actually engage with. You're right that skepticism and doubt help keep you sane. Nobody's questioning that if you can appreciate the irony. Thing is, I can be skeptical about the gravitational pull of the Earth's mass, but the math still works no matter how many times I demand they do it again and I remain terrestrial bound. Skepticism used as a tool of spite doesn't facilitate enlightenment, though it can in the long-term negatively impact your ability to determine what is real.

We've all met somebody so full of themselves they couldn't take another bite. And condescension is galling, no matter who you are. I would argue that there are 2 ways that a person can express arrogance. In the first case the person is arrogant but can back up their boasting with actual ability. They're difficult to work with, but they get results. Alternatively, and more commonly, a person is arrogant because they're are deep in the grasp of Dunning-Krueger. The arrogance of a champion is cloying. The arrogance of a spectator is intolerable.

The reality is that breakthroughs that change models and ways of thinking long-term are rarely the result of a specific "Eureka!" moment. They're the result of years of tedious, exhausting work done by many people together. Why do people tend to assume the WHO are better at this than Trump? Because they've invested their lives in bringing us knowledge about this to help us. They've gone through years of education, mentoring, research, peer review, data gathering, compiling, editing... They put in the work. Sometimes they get it wrong. On the other hand, all the times they get it right tend not to make the headlines.

If hubris is what you are really angry about, be cautious with where you direct that anger. A fool who thinks he's brilliant is way more insufferable than a boorish genius and, Harry Houdini would argue, probably more dangerous.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, I think you misunderstood. I was saying I wanted you to not ask leading questions.

Are you sure it's just you don't like acknowledging the answers you would give would honestly lead somewhere?

This by contrast is something I can actually engage with. You're right that skepticism and doubt help keep you sane. Nobody's questioning that if you can appreciate the irony. Thing is, I can be skeptical about the gravitational pull of the Earth's mass, but the math still works no matter how many times I demand they do it again and I remain terrestrial bound. Skepticism used as a tool of spite doesn't facilitate enlightenment, though it can in the long-term negatively impact your ability to determine what is real.

We've all met somebody so full of themselves they couldn't take another bite. And condescension is galling, no matter who you are. I would argue that there are 2 ways that a person can express arrogance. In the first case the person is arrogant but can back up their boasting with actual ability. They're difficult to work with, but they get results. Alternatively, and more commonly, a person is arrogant because they're are deep in the grasp of Dunning-Krueger. The arrogance of a champion is cloying. The arrogance of a spectator is intolerable.

The reality is that breakthroughs that change models and ways of thinking long-term are rarely the result of a specific "Eureka!" moment. They're the result of years of tedious, exhausting work done by many people together. Why do people tend to assume the WHO are better at this than Trump? Because they've invested their lives in bringing us knowledge about this to help us. They've gone through years of education, mentoring, research, peer review, data gathering, compiling, editing... They put in the work. Sometimes they get it wrong. On the other hand, all the times they get it right tend not to make the headlines.

If hubris is what you are really angry about, be cautious with where you direct that anger. A fool who thinks he's brilliant is way more insufferable than a boorish genius and, Harry Houdini would argue, probably more dangerous.

The WHO situation is concerning because there was data from Taiwan researchers being presented suggesting there was spread and yet Taiwan is not allowed in the WHO due to political reasons so the WHO went with China's own data and didn't consider other sources. They got it wrong a lot recently and that's why they're facing criticism. They were facing criticism quite early on even before Trump dropped support for them.

While we don't have the Eureka moment that much anymore there have been breakthroughs held up because people can't or won't accept the data because it challenges long held beliefs

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

You had me at "misunderstands".

 

[I can't enter my old name]

So two weeks ago, Trump tweets a video about social media censorship, and he says he's going to do something about it. The video then gets deleted, by twitter I'm assuming, basically proving him right.


The day finally comes and he does something, and the headline is that he's flipping out because he's being fact checked.

Yeah, I'm thinking something is not right here.

 

[Buyetyen]

Are you sure it's just you don't like acknowledging the answers you would give would honestly lead somewhere?

The WHO situation is concerning because there was data from Taiwan researchers being presented suggesting there was spread and yet Taiwan is not allowed in the WHO due to political reasons so the WHO went with China's own data and didn't consider other sources. They got it wrong a lot recently and that's why they're facing criticism. They were facing criticism quite early on even before Trump dropped support for them.

While we don't have the Eureka moment that much anymore there have been breakthroughs held up because people can't or won't accept the data because it challenges long held beliefs

We had a moment, and then you went back to being catty, presumptuous and dishonest. Bottom line: you want to have the kind of credibility experts have? Earn it.

 

[Gordon_4]

So two weeks ago, Trump tweets a video about social media censorship, and he says he's going to do something about it. The video then gets deleted, by twitter I'm assuming, basically proving him right.


The day finally comes and he does something, and the headline is that he's flipping out because he's being fact checked.

Yeah, I'm thinking something is not right here.

I wasn't aware it was illegal to have your board of directors to be made up only of Democrats. That should be a meaty challenge for the Supreme Court to dig its teeth into.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

We had a moment, and then you went back to being catty, presumptuous and dishonest. Bottom line: you want to have the kind of credibility experts have? Earn it.

Well I can only work with the answers I have which the lack of them can often say more than the presence of them.

Bottom Line: I'm more than aware my expertise is in very niche areas but I tend to check multiple sources with a variety of experts and information on things I'm not and I'm not entirely illiterate in the language of other subjects so I can generally look into the details of what's going on not just the easy to digest summary.

The idea of "Earn it" well no I've met people whose work has more than earned it but people are too entrenched into the belief something is impossible to accept ithas been done by anyone but them or one of the people in their group.

I wasn't aware it was illegal to have your board of directors to be made up only of Democrats. That should be a meaty challenge for the Supreme Court to dig its teeth into.

It's likely not but it's not a good look.

I mean it doesn't help when last election cycle a publication where Chelsea sits on the board of director just happened to put out a piece on PEPE being a white supremacist icon just after Donald Trump or was it Trump JR retweeted a meme titled "The deplorable" which featured PEP. And also wouldn't help the argument when it just so happens Hillary's campaign then put up info about it and the source they linked to? The one Chelsea sits on the board of.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I wasn't aware it was illegal to have your board of directors to be made up only of Democrats. That should be a meaty challenge for the Supreme Court to dig its teeth into.

Illegal? I didn't mention anything about it being illegal.

All I did was provide one example of twitter censorship and one example of the media lying by omission to influence your opinion. You should and ought to be aware of these things, otherwise people will go around defending these corporations and spreading false statements.

I think we can agree that that the federal government removing information without any transparency, and under the guise of balanced media is bad.

I think we can also agree that tech monopolies trying to influence your opinions by removing information, or through purposeful manipulation of search keywords is bad.

And I think we can also agree that media conglomerates controlling what facts are disseminated, what is important and what is not, and lying to you while acting as an authoritative source is also bad.

All of these are trying to control your access to information without your knowledge or consent so they can make you a willing participant in their schemes, whilst pretending to be acting in your best interest. Whether it is legal or not, whether it is"business as usual", or whether everything they say and do perfectly aligns with your political beliefs should not make it any better or worse.

 

[Buyetyen]

The idea of "Earn it" well no I've met people whose work has more than earned it but people are too entrenched into the belief something is impossible to accept ithas been done by anyone but them or one of the people in their group.

Again, nope. If you want me to think that you are more credible on this subject than the WHO, then do the work. Do not be the fool who thinks he's brilliant.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Again, nope. If you want me to think that you are more credible on this subject than the WHO, then do the work. Do not be the fool who thinks he's brilliant.

Oh I'm not well not on virology hence I was watching a veteran in the area break down info around that time and go over it collecting and going over not just the WHO info but what other literature out there says and pointing out how quite a lot of the info was opposing WHO claims and how previous WHO info and guidelines for previous incidents seemed to contradict present ones. Also trying to follow the social media muddling of an ex professor of mine who was also a senior virologist.

All that taken into account you also don't have to be a genius to point out the flaw in some WHO claims of the past (though I'm sure this will be attributed to hindsight being 20-20)

 

[Buyetyen]

Oh I'm not well not on virology hence I was watching a veteran in the area break down info around that time and go over it collecting and going over not just the WHO info but what other literature out there says and pointing out how quite a lot of the info was opposing WHO claims and how previous WHO info and guidelines for previous incidents seemed to contradict present ones. Also trying to follow the social media muddling of an ex professor of mine who was also a senior virologist.

All that taken into account you also don't have to be a genius to point out the flaw in some WHO claims of the past (though I'm sure this will be attributed to hindsight being 20-20)

If you think that modest research is enough to qualify you for anything but a case of Dunning-Krueger then there's not much I can do to help you.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

If you think that modest research is enough to qualify you for anything but a case of Dunning-Krueger then there's not much I can do to help you.

Way to disparage people who have been in their lines or work reading the literature and keeping up to date longer than than some Doctors have been alive lol

Because those are the people I was looking to for info who themselves were going over a large variety of other literature to form their stances.

Though for if you mean just the last part.

When the WHOs own advice can be debunked by citing the WHOs previous advice it suggests a bit of a problem.

 

[Gordon_4]

Illegal? I didn't mention anything about it being illegal.

All I did was provide one example of twitter censorship and one example of the media lying by omission to influence your opinion. You should and ought to be aware of these things, otherwise people will go around defending these corporations and spreading false statements.

I think we can agree that that the federal government removing information without any transparency, and under the guise of balanced media is bad.

I think we can also agree that tech monopolies trying to influence your opinions by removing information, or through purposeful manipulation of search keywords is bad.

And I think we can also agree that media conglomerates controlling what facts are disseminated, what is important and what is not, and lying to you while acting as an authoritative source is also bad.

All of these are trying to control your access to information without your knowledge or consent so they can make you a willing participant in their schemes, whilst pretending to be acting in your best interest. Whether it is legal or not, whether it is"business as usual", or whether everything they say and do perfectly aligns with your political beliefs should not make it any better or worse.

I quite frankly don't give a merry fuck what they get up to. Like at all. And in fact, the less time President Trump - or any fucking world leader - spends on Twitter, the better. If I were is director of IT Security I'd have had Twitter blocked on every device in the White House. And I'd be imposing very strict restrictions on personal devices in the Oval Office.

 

[Buyetyen]

Way to disparage people who have been in their lines or work reading the literature and keeping up to date longer than than some Doctors have been alive lol

No, I mean your research. Reading that stuff makes you only marginally more informed, but you don't understand what you're actually looking at. You're looking at individual data points and perhaps their relationship to one another as it relates to certain topics, but you don't have the grounding of fundamentals to understand how and why it all fits together. Hence why you think data changing over time is proof that the organization tracking the data is bullshit. Like I said, you're a case of Dunning-Krueger. I have a friend who works in biology and is currently studying for his 2nd phD. He's talked shop with me a bit and the main thing it taught me was the humility to know when the glimpses of knowledge revealed to me are not a proper substitute for years of dedicated study and practice.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, I mean your research. Reading that stuff makes you only marginally more informed, but you don't understand what you're actually looking at. Hence why you think data changing over time is proof that the organization tracking the data is bullshit. Like I said, you're a case of Dunning-Krueger.

Hint: I did some one of them was a professor who taught me lol.

I also can point out how other organisations were saying the WHO data was wrong / China's data was wrong already but were being ignored seemingly.

I get it though.

You want to be told and have a definitive voice from a tech company say what's right and wrong while their fact checker with a degree in art history tells you which Science is right and wrong.

 

[Kwak]

And it is YOUR fault if you're bulliable into suicide from the internet. Normal people aren't. They just click off and go do something else when someone's an asshole if they even use twitter at all.

Where was this groundbreaking study into the psychology of Normal People's response to bullying published? I'd love to peruse it.