The “racism is the same as original sin” argument reminds me of the
“sexual abuse is the same as witchcraft” argument they trotted out in
2017. It‘a pretty ironic rationalists would use those arguments when you
could apply bayes theorem to show why they’re bad. There’s no such thing
as original sin or witchcraft so we don’t update on accusations of
witchcraft or original sin. Sexual abuse and racism are real, so we
update on accusations of sexual abuse or racism. P(A) is zero for
witchcraft and original sin. P(A) is nonzero for sexual abuse and
racism.
Rationalists, I’m begging you to just once apply the thing you’ve
based your entire life around.
Yud: Humans are born with lots of cognitive biases, here's a complicated trick to train yourself out of some of them.
Rationalist: WOW so cool.
Slightly left-leaning person: One of those biases is racial.
Rationalist: GTFO that's original sin and is dumb.
Rationalist: Reality is objective, but human perception is flawed.
Marxist: Right, like how capitalism makes you perceive social relations as material.
Rationalist: No I meant like how our eyes can't see gamma rays
Well thats the whole point, to link it to something non existent. There were sexual abuse allegations against rationalists. Now they’re basically as “not racist” as Trump.
(see “you are still crying wolf” and note that the author of course knew of ads for executing the central park five and the muslim ban as well as Obama birth thing)
Me: original sin is actually right. It actually gets amusing when you talk to Christians about this because they can understand the idea of original sin but not apply it in this context.
(By the by, I hope crossposting this from twitter isn’t seen as
obnoxious or pretentious by any of you; if it is, I will refrain from
doing so in the future. To Sneer-clubbers, that is; rationalists don’t
get to call shit obnoxious or pretentious.)
I am finding it kind of funny that the sub is taking a bunch of shit
from the mottizens for censoring right-wing views, and then gets clapped
back here for censoring left-wing views. Damned if you do, damned if you
don’t.
What is interesting is that Themotte used to say that they got flack from both the left (sneerclub) and the right (dunno who, guess the previous more free speech oriented offshoots), which proved they were just in the right place or something.
Yeah pissing off both sides just show you can piss people off, it has little epistemic value, not that they are good at that anyway, as they often forget [goodharts law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) (I just wanted to link to goodharts law btw, LW did post about it in the past).
To be honest I couldn't find the ban thread after a couple minutes of searching, so I'm talking out of my ass here, but I'm not sure that's entirely fair just yet. We'll have to wait and see what the sub becomes after a couple more weeks and what kind of people end up populating it.
I.e., hard right with a velvet glove.
The “racism is the same as original sin” argument reminds me of the “sexual abuse is the same as witchcraft” argument they trotted out in 2017. It‘a pretty ironic rationalists would use those arguments when you could apply bayes theorem to show why they’re bad. There’s no such thing as original sin or witchcraft so we don’t update on accusations of witchcraft or original sin. Sexual abuse and racism are real, so we update on accusations of sexual abuse or racism. P(A) is zero for witchcraft and original sin. P(A) is nonzero for sexual abuse and racism.
Rationalists, I’m begging you to just once apply the thing you’ve based your entire life around.
(By the by, I hope crossposting this from twitter isn’t seen as obnoxious or pretentious by any of you; if it is, I will refrain from doing so in the future. To Sneer-clubbers, that is; rationalists don’t get to call shit obnoxious or pretentious.)
I am finding it kind of funny that the sub is taking a bunch of shit from the mottizens for censoring right-wing views, and then gets clapped back here for censoring left-wing views. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.