This is an open discussion topic. Discuss whatever you want.
If you want a separate discussion just on a specific topic, find any post related to that topic and discuss there. Or ask me to create a new post for your discussion.
How do you find replies and new discussion to read? Use the recent comments link in the side bar. (Or use the Open Discussion link in the side bar and scroll down to the bottom.) Or leave this page (or the recent comments page) open in a browser tab and refresh it periodically (or use an auto refresh browser plugin). Or use the Comments RSS Feed. Or use website change notification software.
List of prior open discussions.
Learn about new blog discussion features including posting images.
Click here to scroll to the bottom of the discussion.
View only the latest 50 comments. This will make the page load faster. You can edit the URL to the number you prefer and bookmark it. This link also includes a "#latest" anchor to scroll down to the last comment, which you can remove if you don't like it. FYI, setting a comment number limit will work on any post if you manually add it to the URL.
Messages (10 of 976) (Show All Comments)
Charles Tew said in his most recent video (FP Podcast #88) that people who are attracted to a certain sex can’t be friends with that sex cuz “if you like a member of the sex you are romantically attracted to enough to be friends then you will develop feelings for that person. And then you will be in a situation in which you can manifest those feelings more fully, and they are requited, in which case you will become more than friends, or you will be in a situation in which it is not possible to manifest those feelings, or they are un-requited, in which case being friends is a bad idea and will be a painful, unpleasant experience.
Now this principle doesn't apply in the context of people that you wouldn't be in a romantic relationship with, for what ever reason, the most obvious reason here would be an age difference. But within the context of people with whom you could conceivably be in a romantic relation ship, i don't believe in friend ships. I'm not saying you cant be acquaintances, or have a professional relationship, or be polite to this person or never cross paths with her, but, when i talk about friendship I'm talking about 'hanging out', 'hanging out' with a member of the opposite sex with whom you could be in a relationship but for the fact that one of you isn't into it, or is already taken by someone else, is a bad idea, and i disapprove of it. so dont be friends with girls."
he talks about it as a part of a response to a question, question starts at 3:20, his answer ends at 7:08
That seemed dumb cuz you can be friends with someone on text even if you can’t see or hear them, so why not in person? maybe that doesnt count as "hanging out" but hanging out seems really vague, does that mean you cant play online video games with girls? would that count as hanging out?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/china-pathologizing-uighur-muslims-mental-illness/568525/
This is what psychiatry is, it's just disguised less in China.
lol that's twice recently that I got a link from here, forgot where i got it from, and then posted it here.
He's lying about the bot. He wrote the script himself. He'd say it's a joke, but it will confuse many people who don't have a good grasp on the capabilities of bots/"AI"/"computer learning"/etc. It could also confuse lots of programmers who aren't familiar with GDQ culture. Also lots of people aren't good at recognizing how much people lie and being able to make a confident judgment that something is a lie.
I think it's bad to post confusing falsehoods. That there are 3 major skills involved in recognizing its false, all of which are uncommon, makes it considerably worse.
Imagine you are a liberal Dem in '04 and I appear to you as a ghostly apparition
> I tell you:
> "In 2017, the President of the United States will be someone who has very clearly and forcefully stated to the world that the Iraq War was a mistake.
> He will also make it a major priority to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals to get a better deal for American workers. He will repeatedly exclaim that, when it comes to trade, corporate profits should come second to securing good jobs for American workers. Not free trade, fair trade!, he'll say.
> On the first day of his presidency, he will make it a priority to meet with several organized labor leaders in the White House; they will leave the meeting thrilled and state that they truly believe he is on their side and that he wants to do whatever he can to help create jobs and improve wages for American workers. He will make it a favorite pastime to call up fat-cat CEOs and yell at them about how they need to stop outsourcing jobs and need to invest in American labor OR ELSE."
> "That's amazing," you'd say. I might reply: "well, you know, some people think that is a little tyrannical and autocratic trying to bully people like --" "Oh please," you'd cut me off, "I think those CEOs can take it. It's amazing to hear we'll finally have someone showing a little bit of back bone for labor against capital in this country! Anyway, this guy sounds amazing. Tell me more. What does he think about health care?"
> I'd continue: "Well, when it comes to health care, he will come out in favor of negotiating against drug companies for lower prices on prescription drugs. And he will say that, whatever we do on health care reform, we need to make sure that we guarantee coverage for people with preexisting conditions.
> He will be forcefully in favor of preserving social security and medicare. He will call for six weeks of guaranteed maternity leave.
> Also, I should note, he is in favor of large-scale government spending on massive projects to put Americans to work rebuilding our national infrastructure.
> He will also come out in favor of reform to close the carried interest tax loophole.
> Also, he won't seem very religious all. Not only will he be for civil unions, he will in fact openly admit that he has no problem with gay marriage. He will even wave around a rainbow LGBT flag at one of his rallies."
> At this point, you would probably stop me. "Stop, stop. I don't believe you," you'd say, "It's too good to be true."
> In your head you are picturing some heroic left-wing dream candidate.
> "Well, there is more," I'd say. "You really should know that he wants to build a wall on our border with Mexico to prevent further illegal immigration and, although he has suggested that after the wall is built he may be open to some limited amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, he does not support blanket amnesty for all 11 million+ illegal immigrants in the country. He dismisses all arguments about illegal immigration ultimately benefiting GDP, because he believes the most important thing to focus on is the well-being of low-wage American workers."
> In response to this, you might say that you need to see the specifics. But you'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that last point about low-wage workers and generally think the 2017 President's view was within the range of reasonable views. After all, at this point, even the NYT editorial board is still against amnesty for illegal immigrants ( http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html ) and the idea of a physical wall on some or all of the Mexican border doesn't seem like a crazy idea ( http://freebeacon.com/issues/flashback-democrats-supported-mexico-border-fence/ ). See also: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/05/18/flashback-bill-clinton-in-96-sounds-like-trump-on-immigration-we-are-a-nation-of-laws-n2164898 ; http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/time-harry-reid-sounded-exactly-donald-trump-illegal-immigration . You might even say "wait, did you say 11+ million? We haven't done anything about that yet?"
> "Uh ok," I'd say, "well you should also know that he is going to make some very strong statements about the need for law and order and say that he wants to crack down hard on crime."
> Again, you might ask for specifics. But, at the end of the day, you'd probably say something like: "don't all politicians talk that way these days? I mean Bill Clinton sure did. I think we can stomach another Clinton/Biden crime bill. This doesn't seem so bad, especially when weighed against all of that great stuff you were talking about earlier. Tell me more about how he wants to renegotiate NAFTA...."
> "Well, I'm not sure you understand," I'd say. "He is going to say some pretty controversial stuff on race and the inner cities that people are really not going to like."
> "Like what?" you'd ask.
> "Well," I'd say, "one particularly controversial statement that will rile a lot of people up is: '[The] inner cities of our country . . . are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible [and] I�m going to help the African-Americans. I�m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.'"
> "Bravo!" you'd say. "I'm glad we will finally have someone willing to speak honestly about the inner cities and the terrible conditions so many people, racial minorities especially, are living in. If conservatives find that controversial, then that's their problem. I'm tired of Bush ignoring our inner cities. This guy sounds great!"
> At this point, I'd realize you weren't quite getting it. I could try reading out some particular awkward Trump quotes, but I'd probably realize I'm not going to convince you that your left-wing hero of 2017 is a racist on the basis of quotes like that. If "you cannot go to a 7 -Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" or "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" doesn't do it for Joe Biden, the taco bowl tweet probably won't do it here. So I switch gears.
> "Well," I'd reply, "there's more you need to know." "He is going to come into office on the heels of some terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. by islamic extremists. Don't worry, nothing as bad as 9/11, but still pretty bad. Because many of the people involved in these attacks came from overseas, he is going to institute a temporary ban on immigration from 7 middle eastern countries until the government can establish better vetting procedures for new visitors and immigrants."
> You'd probably reply with something like: "Well, I'll have to see what those new vetting procedures actually are. But after Bush, I'll just be glad if he doesn't invade all seven! Anyway, tell me more about this guy...."
> At this point I'd have to start reeling off things like lowering the corporate tax rate, an ed secretary who believes in charter schools, cutting back on administrative regulations in certain areas, seeking to balance the budget in view of our $19 trillion national debt.
> You'd probably say something like: "Well then, I guess we won't have cured the democratic party of Clintonism altogether by 2017, but....... wait? Did you say $19 trillion? Our national debt is really going to more than double between now and 2017?"
> "Yes, it's going to get pretty deep," I'd reply.
> "Hmm. Well that's what we get for all these dumb wars in the middle east," you'd say. "I guess our president in 2017 will be left to try and clean that up."
> "There's more," I'd say. "He is going to have a pretty sordid history when it comes to women. There will be a couple accusers who say he sexually harassed them. Nothing definitive, but a lot of allegations. There will be a tape where he's caught, about 10 years before running for president, saying he has 'grabbed women by the pussy.'"
> (Long sigh) "Well then I guess we realllly won't have rid the Democratic party of clintonism entirely" (chuckle). "But it does sound like he will be pretty good for women on policy. Tell me more about that six weeks of maternity leave. Sounds very progressive...."
> "Oh shit, there's one big thing I forgot to tell you. He's pro-life. Or at least he says he's pro-life now. He had said he was pro-choice in the past, though. Some people think he just plays the pro-life role now because he needed it to get elected."
> This you would probably be very taken aback by. "I don't believe it," you'd say. "Are you sure? He's so progressive on all of those other issues.... we've progressed so much that we can elect a guy like this, but he still needed to play the pro-life card to get elected? Even as a democrat? How did we go backward on that one?"
> "Well," I'd say "he'd been a democrat previously, but actually ran for president as a Republican.
> That would probably blow your mind. "You're telling me this guy is a Republican? I mean, jesus, I'm going to disagree with him on abortion and the corporate tax stuff but, oh wow.... it seems too good to be true that we're really going to progress so much between now and 2017 that this is what our REPUBLICANS will look like? I mean, wow, from George W. Bush to this guy? I mean, it sounds like we are really going to have a lot of common ground to work from. I could certainly work with a Republican like that. You are sure he's a Republican right? Really? OK, wow."
> At that point, I would have to ask: "would it surprise you to learn that you are literally going to cry openly in the street while waving around a sign comparing this guy to Hitler?"
http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&mc=167&forum_id=2#32458197
In the recent induction podcast Elliot mentions a book where the first half comprises criticism of Popper, and the last half is comprised of Poppers responses. What's the title of the book?
I haven't searched for it. I think Elliott should have mentioned the title in the podcast.
popper book
#11595 The book is called "The Philosophy of Karl Popper" volumes 1 and 2, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp.
Added links to show notes:
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Popper-Library-Living-Philosophers/dp/0875481418/?tag=curi04-20
https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Karl-Popper-Part/dp/0875481426/?tag=curi04-20
I didn't think about giving the cite b/c the anti-Popper scholars ought to already know it or else they are frauds. But yes I should tell my podcast audience.
Interesting info about what happened with the Mont Pelerin Society:
https://mises.org/library/against-neoliberals