prev <-> next
[2021-09-23 13:51:26] - a: Can we at least agree that maybe the media (and products of big tech like Facebook and Google search) might be pretty heavily biased, then? -Paul
[2021-09-23 13:51:00] - paul: uh huh.
i only want the market to decide when the market is going to agree with me! ~a[2021-09-23 13:50:10] - a: You're a lot more "let the market decide" on this than I would have thought, then. How about letting the market decide if a lone baker wants to bake a gay wedding cake? Still a line too far? -Paul
[2021-09-23 13:44:14] - https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1439259891064004610 ACLU decides to modify RBG quote to remove references to "woman". -Paul
[2021-09-23 02:03:55] - mig: ah, i think i misunderstood you? were you saying that someone asserted without evidence that it was russian disinformation? or that the laptop story was substantiated? ~a
[2021-09-22 23:31:45] - a: from the letter verbatim: "we do not have evidence of russian involvement." - mig
[2021-09-22 19:20:22] - why not? ~a
[2021-09-22 19:11:00] - a: former officials making a statement isn't really evidence. - mig
[2021-09-22 17:48:46] - mig: "more than 50 former intel officials" don't count as evidence? ~a
[2021-09-22 17:47:19] - why i hate houston (watched it at 1.75x). some interesting perspective about urban planning that kinda makes me want to become an urban planner! maybe its time for a career change? fun katy freeway discussion. ~a
[2021-09-22 17:41:00] - a: there was more going on than the laptop story being merely called, "unsubstantiated." It was asserted, without evidence, that it was Russian disinformation. - mig
[2021-09-22 17:31:31] - monopolies are usually bad for the market, so i think it'd be cool if consumers and governments got past the whole "too big to fail" concept. ~a
[2021-09-22 17:30:43] - for the sake of argument, i say, yes i still feel this way. google wants to be "trusted" to provide the most correct search results, with the least amount of scam/spam, so if they choose to filter out stuff on how trump should go to jail for being an asshole, i'll decide that google shouldn't be trusted as much anymore and start using duckduckgo more. ~a
[2021-09-22 17:27:52] - a: I'll be interested in seeing if you have the same thought if/when that goes against your candidate.
-Paul[2021-09-22 17:27:07] - a: I think that could be something interesting to try for media (honestly, we almost already have that in an unspoken way). But is it okay for big tech companies, who often have almost monopoly like power in certain areas, to be able to control the discourse like that? -Paul
[2021-09-22 17:27:06] - paul: "it's fine for a company like Google to decide, if they see a news report critical to a politician they like, to just make any references to that news article disappear from search results" for the sake of argument, yes: let the market decide! ~a
[2021-09-22 17:25:55] - a: I've heard the argument elsewhere that this whole idea of an "objective" media is silly since all journalists have biases, and it's counterproductive to force them to try to hide it. It's better to have journalists be upfront about their biases so consumers know what they're getting into. -Paul
[2021-09-22 17:24:03] - a: So, it's fine for a company like Google to decide, if they see a news report critical to a politician they like, to just make any references to that news article disappear from search results? -Paul
[2021-09-22 17:21:51] - paul: here's an argument i don't feel strongly about (so, like, a thought experiment!) what's wrong with nakedly political moderation? /r/conservative moderation is nakedly political, and you agree that's fine, right? also breitbart, wnd, infowars, occupydemocrats, wonkette, etc. nakedly political moderation from big tech is hypocritical, but i (sorta?) respond: let the market decide! ~a
[2021-09-22 17:21:22] - a: And for the media, it's all about what unsubstantiated stories get picked up and reported on and amplified and which get countless articles written about how it's disinformation / misinformation / a conspiracy theory? I know the specifics are disputed, but remember, Glenn Greenwald left a journalistic organization he founded because he felt like his story was going to be censored. -Paul
[2021-09-22 17:20:25] - paul: "That seems like something we criticize other countries for, no?" their governments using laws and criminal penalties? yes. their private companies? no. ~a
[2021-09-22 17:19:06] - a: "what did they get wrong?" Well, it's different for media and big tech, right? For big tech, how do you determine which news stories are too "unsubstantiated" to be allowed to be shared online? They censored this story about a major party presidential candidate during an election. That seems like something we criticize other countries for, no? -Paul
[2021-09-22 16:28:50] - paul: i don't think this is a case of the media or big tech getting something wrong (or, worded different, what did they get wrong?), or an example of why private companies curating/moderating conversations is a really bad idea. i also don't think the "trump is a russian plant" theory is one that (other than opinion sections) got any traction in the media. ~a
[2021-09-22 16:13:25] - a: And it's really hard not to see it as nakedly political. This Hunter Biden thing seems about as "unsubstantiated" as the whole "Trump is a Russian plant" theory. One was endlessly trumpeted by the media for months and was allowed to spread like wildfire on the internet, while the other was basically shunned from the internet and the majority of media outlets. -Paul
[2021-09-22 16:09:25] - a: The point is this is (possibly!) yet another example of the media AND big tech getting something wrong and another example of why censoring "misinformation" is a really bad idea. -Paul
[2021-09-22 16:08:33] - a: "isn't removing the old reporting the right thing to do?" Sure. I'm not saying they should stubbornly stick to their guns about it being completely false even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's not the point I am making at all. -Paul
[2021-09-22 16:06:50] - https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/vaccine-mandates-the-end-of-covid I haven't even finished this yet, but I am really enjoying it. Basically a group of people are weighing in on their thoughts on the vaccine mandate. Really good points being made on BOTH sides. -Paul
[2021-09-22 14:03:25] - paul: its weird for you to get stuck up on the lab leak theory and the hunter biden story. you usually demand evidence for shit you accept, right? ~a
[2021-09-22 14:01:22] - paul: "you were right" isn't something that the asshole that was flaunting unsubstantiated info is owed. ~a
[2021-09-22 14:00:50] - paul: same story with the lab leak theory: it was unsubstantiated, it was reported as so, then new evidence came out. and the old reporting that said it was unsubstantiated is deprecated. ~a
[2021-09-22 14:00:26] - paul: isn't that ok though? if a story that was unsubstantiated gets evidence, isn't removing the old reporting the right thing to do? what would you have them do? they didn't do anything wrong, so i see no need for them to apologize. and until the new story gets actual traction the other direction, i think they should do exactly what they did? ~a
[2021-09-21 20:37:27] - a: https://www.yahoo.com/now/york-times-quietly-deletes-claim-021800355.html Well, it sounds like outlets are starting to remove qualifiers like "unsubstantiated" from their reporting. Seems similar to the first change in thinking with the lab leak theory. -Paul
[2021-09-21 19:36:30] - who's taking it seriously? ~a
[2021-09-21 18:45:04] - mig: Yeah, I saw those tweets. So, has the "Hunter Biden laptop story" joined the "Wuhan lab leak" as something that was previously dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theory but is now being taken seriously? -Paul
[2021-09-21 18:36:46] - https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1440313872334798856?s=21 i like glenn greenwald rant threads, even if they get self indulgently hyperbolic. - mig
[2021-09-21 18:16:49] - a: Yeah, I tried doing some googling too, but it was a little inconclusive and I couldn't go further without signing up for an account. I found some anecdotal evidence leaning towards me being right, but nothing I felt confidence posting as "proof". -Paul
[2021-09-21 17:24:58] - a: some conservatives are kind of doing a tightwire act where they feel they need to coddle the vaccine refuse-niks. They need to rationalize the refuse-nik behavior and not simply admit these people are being willfully self destructive. - mig
[2021-09-21 17:07:59] - (i did google around, i'm not being lazy. most of my google results seemed to lean-towards me being wrong about bumble specifically, but i didn't see anything definitive) ~a
[2021-09-21 17:05:43] - paul: those are an important three years. i feel like, especially in the last 3 years, a lot of people have pushed-back on this obviously-unfair double standard. does bumble still, today, let you filter on height but not weight? ~a
[2021-09-21 16:54:52] - https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/18/bumble-now-lets-you-filter-potential-matches-on-bumble-date-bizz-and-bff/ Looks like 3 years ago Bumble started with height but didn't include weight. -Paul
[2021-09-21 16:51:52] - a: "they're equally unaccepted by society" Interesting. I don't have much personal experience, but going back to my analogy, I feel like "height" is probably a filter you might find in online dating sites while I can't imagine "weight" would be. -Paul
[2021-09-21 16:47:43] - a: I'm fine with one or two stories of prominent anti-vax individuals dying. When it is multiple stories every day of just regular people dying.... I struggle to see how it's news. Why not just have the occasional article about how X% of COVID deaths are from unvaccinated people? Makes the same point without making it seem vindictive or mocking. -Paul
[2021-09-21 16:12:40] - i'll personally say that it would be better *for liberals who don't want to die* if conservatives got vaccinated. ~a
[2021-09-21 16:11:35] - ok time to take the herman-cain-award up to the next generation: what's with breitbart writer john nolte saying that liberals are tricking conservatives into not getting vaccinated so that they die? can we discuss personal responsibility? or how there is no evidence of this? and couldn't be true? link ~a
[2021-09-21 16:09:33] - paul: i agree both are silly filters. but i disagree, and think that they're equally unaccepted by society. of course some people are going to think one is ok and the other isn't. but as a society, (imo) we're slowly coming to the conclusion that both are equally shallow. ~a
[2021-09-21 16:06:02] - a: Sorry, just realized I phrased my question misleadingly. I was less asking which you thought was personally acceptable and which is more socially acceptable. I agree both are silly "filters". But I think discriminating on height is generally accepted by most people whereas I think most people would be angered by discriminating on weight. -Paul
[2021-09-21 14:29:33] - mig: agreed, yes. every time i see it with mockery, i get kinda pissed. these were humans that died, man. have some respect? ~a
[2021-09-21 14:23:45] - a: I agree partially, but I think the delivery of these stories too far often come with the tone of snark and mockery (if not in the story itself, with the people spreading the story) that supersedes the goal of trying to educate, which I think will generally have the opposite effect. - mig
[2021-09-21 14:14:07] - paul: "person refused vaccine and then dies of covid". unpopular opinion: i think these articles are important. we need to keep telling/sharing their stories until death rates drop. especially when the person in question was an anti-vax activist: their story means something to the unvaccinated. this story more than most will touch the emotional sides of their broken brains. ~a
[2021-09-21 13:53:00] - paul: "i only date people over 5'10"" versus "i only date people under 200 lbs" both of these seem equally dumb to me. if i saw either one of those on a dating site, i'd 100% reject them immediately. there was zero need to call these people out as undesirables. on the other hand, if you were filtering on those criteria (and the site allowed filtering like this), i think both would be fine imo. and their inverse would be also fine. ~a
[2021-09-21 13:47:40] - https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/new-zealand-kfc-arrest-men-intl-hnk/index.html People are smuggling KFC in New Zealand because of lockdowns. -Paul
[2021-09-21 13:47:00] - Daniel: No, but it does reference JoJo Siwa, so it's a draw.
-Paul[2021-09-21 13:40:31] - paul: just as a comparison - probably due to business model - npr doesn't mention trump at all or the missing lady or person dying from refusing vaccine. -Daniel
[2021-09-21 13:33:53] - Although this IS the first day in like a week where there are more references to Biden than Trump on the front page, and they're actually talking about the horrible situation on the border so that's a little good. -Paul
[2021-09-21 13:32:42] - Random aside: The main page of CNN is like custom made to annoy me right now. Biggest story is like the zillionth: "Person refused vaccine and then dies of COVID" story. Second main story is about how Trump wanted to overturn the election. Third main story is the stereotypical "pretty white girl goes missing and the country loses its mind". -Paul
[2021-09-21 13:28:58] - a: Example? Sure. How about a dating site? I assume no sites would allow a filter by weight, so maybe somebody has in their bio "I only date people over 5'10"" versus "I only date people under 200 lbs". -Paul
[2021-09-21 12:59:58] - if that's the case, i'll still say that neither is particularly acceptable. ~a
[2021-09-21 12:59:17] - oh wow, i just realized. were you saying the scenario was "all short people are unattractive" or "all fat people are unattractive"? ~a
[2021-09-21 12:57:35] - paul: though maybe you can give me an example, so we can judge with a specific scenario. ~a
[2021-09-21 12:56:34] - paul: that depends 100% on your audience and the "target"? but i'd say neither is particularly acceptable to me. calling a non-actor/non-model unattractive is a generally useless action. ~a
[2021-09-21 12:54:30] - a: Although that reminds me of an interesting point I saw recently: Which do you think is more acceptable? To say that short people are unattractive or that fat people are unattractive? -Paul
[2021-09-21 12:52:09] - a: In a humorous way, sure.
-Paul[2021-09-20 20:08:25] - paul: https://i.redd.it/lx6fio6q6oo71.jpg . . . does this sum up your opinions of twitter? ~a
[2021-09-20 20:02:14] - paul: halving just happened, so not for a while. 2024. bitcoin coinbase is down to ~1.7%/year, which is insanely low. (coincidentally gold mining is also ~1.7%/year) ~a
[2021-09-20 19:51:55] - a: 2%? Lucky. My positions are down more around 5%. I mostly agree, though. It's noise. I am not acting off these moves. Much of that is because I don't keep cash available, though. I should probably start saving some to buy a little more bitcoin, though. When's the next halving?
-Paul[2021-09-20 15:33:06] - paul: "no real news". i agree there is no real substantive news, but also i'll argue there is no real substantive changes to prices. i.e. if the whole market goes up 2% one week, and goes down 2% the next week, this is mostly just noise, right? i wouldn't ever "take advantage of sales" or "buy on the dip" if there is no sale or no dip? ~a
[2021-09-20 15:19:20] - a: Sure, but if you liked SE at $343, then $328 just a few days later with no real news should look even better. -Paul
[2021-09-20 15:15:20] - paul: ok, true, but an additional -20% correction would still have me scratching my head, trying to predict if it'll go down even further. we've had crazy-gains the past few years. ~a
[2021-09-20 15:14:51] - a: Cheaper than it was a few days ago.
Also, depends on the company, but a lot of them are flat or down YTD. -Paul[2021-09-20 14:49:16] - paul: "it is exciting to see the stock of high quality companies go on sale" you call this a sale? we're still up 75% from 18 months ago. ~a
[2021-09-17 21:20:33] - it should also be noted in the aftermath of the strike the administration was quick to high five themselves on getting them bad guys. - mig
[2021-09-17 21:17:51] - https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1438936911259779080 "No disciplinary action expected, officials say. US military stands by intel leading to strike." Like, seriously? - mig
[2021-09-17 19:31:25] - https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1438941957330509832 Oof. So tragic. -Paul
[2021-09-17 18:32:00] - yeah, in voy and ds9, they mostly start with high fours or low fives timeline if you wanna geek out. ~a
[2021-09-17 17:49:28] - a: Now that you mention it, I suppose I do vaguely remember most stardates starting with a 4. Would I have noticed one that didn't? Probably not.
-Paul[2021-09-17 16:53:23] - paul: well i used to do that, yes. so i know exactly what you mean. but, one day i noticed there was like a million fours and patrick stewart emphasized them a little too strongly with his weird accent (ex. FOUR FOUR three FOUR FOUR point FOUR). so that got stuck in my head. so when jeri ryan inverted the first two numbers, i noticed that it started with a one (15 instead of 51), and was like. waaaait . . . what? ~a
[2021-09-17 16:50:30] - Daniel: I've got a Captain America shield decal on the wall and a Thor's Hammer (you might have seen it during the draft). You think I need more? -Paul
[2021-09-17 16:49:44] - a: Not gonna lie, I NEVER paid attention to stardates and frankly don't even think I could tell if one was off by 100 years or not. To me, it was always a random collection of numbers. -Paul
[2021-09-17 15:57:38] - in other nerd news, i noticed that a character said the wrong star-date in an episode of star trek (voy). audrey thought it was super nerdy that i noticed, and that i cared. i looked it up, and apparently the script had the correct star-date, but the actress said the wrong date, and i guess for some reason nobody in production caught it? ~a
[2021-09-17 15:28:43] - MCU / Avengers poster? I have a star wars print, a fallout print, spider man poster, band of brothers print, and a print from a book series (cosmere) on my wall if any of those sound interesting. -Daniel
[2021-09-17 15:19:53] - ah yes. that room. gotcha. ~a
[2021-09-17 14:55:12] - mig: Ooohhh, that does look nice, but I can't help but wonder if I should look for something zerg.
-Paul[2021-09-17 14:54:34] - a: Well, that room has a TV too, but I meant the one with the bigger TV. It's off to the side if you are walking to the game table. Opposite side as the bar. -Paul
[2021-09-17 14:48:41] - paul: https://www.blizzardgearstore.com/starcraft/t-43274636+z-9964651-268819300?ab={wt-static_graphic}{pt-tlp}{al-Shop_By_Game}{ct-Shop_By_Game}{StarCraft} i ended up getting the Terran Battlecruiser mini. - mig
[2021-09-17 14:42:02] - there's a room in the basement with the tv? is it the room with the mats? ~a
[2021-09-17 14:41:03] - I'm trying to set up my "man-cave" (for those who have been to the house, it's the room in the basement with the TV). Really want to lean into the geek aspect. I've probably already gotten enough Star Trek and MCU decorations. What else should I look for? I think I definitely need to get me a Mass Effect item or two and maybe a StarCraft one beyond my solo marine figurine. Any ideas? -Paul
[2021-09-17 13:40:23] - a: Yeah, people are jerks, especially on the internet. I'm amazed I don't get it more often with investing and twitter to be honest. I think that kind of attitude is responsible for a lot of imposter syndrome. -Paul
[2021-09-16 20:20:46] - my new pet peeve: when you ask a question online and half of the answers are "haven't you ever heard of X?" or "sarcasm sarcasm, that's why we have X". why don't they just say "X". it was what i was literally asking, why wouldn't you just give me the answer without being a jerk? its kinda like you're one of today's lucky 10000 i guess? ~a
[2021-09-16 18:10:48] - yeah that's my point, but yes you're right, the market cap of btc is still smallish compared to both of them. ~a
[2021-09-15 20:50:10] - a: Low, sure, but it compounds. I guess your point is that btc has gone bonkers in the past few years and it hasn't (seemingly) taken a noticeable bite out of USD or gold? Could it be because the overall market cap of btc is still smallish compared to both of them? -Paul
[2021-09-15 19:41:03] - paul: if you use cpi-u (which probably has some big issues, i'll admit), the usd inflation rate has been hovering around 3%/year for the past few decades. most would consider that a low inflation rate. yah? ~a
[2021-09-15 19:39:42] - a: Wait, what period of time are we talking about? Because the USD has pretty consistently lost value over the past however many decades. -Paul
[2021-09-15 16:08:22] - sorry. ignore the "/year". i didn't mean to say that. ~a
[2021-09-15 16:07:57] - paul: i agree that the 20k/year by 2025 seems fairly safe as of today
~a[2021-09-15 16:07:11] - paul: "deflationary effects of technology to some degree" wouldn't we be arguing that the USD has * not * deflated in this case? hypothetically, if some things are inflating and other are deflating at the same rates, then i don't think you can call that currency inflation. its just . . . i don't know what you call it, but probably not currency inflation? ~a
[2021-09-15 15:39:38] - a: "and usd hasn't inflated at all" I guess I am of the opinion that the USD has inflated, but it has been masked by deflationary effects of technology to some degree? -Paul
[2021-09-15 15:38:52] - a: "i also think its likelihood is small" Yeah, I would say 5-10%? But of course, I am more bullish on btc considering our bet: "paul wins if btc/usd exchange rate is $20k (or more) on 2025-06-26 at 13:00 Eastern time (averaged across major exchanges: use coinmarketcap.com or a suitable alternative)" -Paul
[2021-09-15 14:36:43] - paul: what's kinda weird is in all this time gold hasn't gone down at all. and usd hasn't inflated at all. where is all this value coming from? people spending less on necessities? wouldn't that tank the economy? ~a
[2021-09-15 14:34:48] - paul: ok, yeah, its definitely possible for bitcoin to hit 50% of gold in 5 years. i also think its likelihood is small. like you said, a high end, or stretch, maybe, sure. of course, i originally thought it hitting 0.1% of gold was highly unlikely, and we passed that years ago (~$700/bitcoin). ~a
[2021-09-15 14:29:31] - a: "do i think it'll be 50% the size of gold in 5 years?" Yeah, gold is the same thing I am measuring against. I think 50% the size of gold in 5 years is a reasonable high end of an upside range for bitcoin, but I admit that would be a stretch and not something I am counting on at all. -Paul
[2021-09-15 14:22:10] - paul: higher than normal inflation would obviously knock that value up (if the usd goes through inflation, but bitcoin does not). ~a
[2021-09-15 13:58:15] - paul: you're assuming normal-inflation? ~4ish%/year? then no, probably not. putting it into terms i can reason in my head makes more sense. do i think it'll be 50% the size of gold in 5 years? no, probably not. but maybe 10% of the size of gold in 5 years makes a bit more sense. 10% = only 60k/bitcoin ($11.1e12 * 10% / 18.8e6). ~a
[2021-09-15 13:41:47] - paul: in this case i love twitter. i would have never come up with that on my own. i also found this: image about fatalities. ~a
[2021-09-15 13:13:56] - a: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/cathie-wood-bitcoin-price-prediction-jump-500000-ether-confidence-high-2021-9 And now for something completely different: Barring any kind of monetary collapse, what do you personally think is the biggest upside for bitcoin over the next few years (within reason)? $500k seems high to me, but $200k seems reasonable. -Paul
[2021-09-15 13:06:31] - a: Sounds like you hate twitter. -Paul
[2021-09-14 20:02:31] - paul, just found this on twitter. was not taken down for misinformation. "Our cousin won’t get a car cuz his friend got one & became impotent. His testicles became swollen. His friend was weeks away from getting married, now the girl called off the wedding. So just pray on it & make sure you’re comfortable with ur decision, not bullied" ~a
[2021-09-14 17:57:36] - a: I know we're replaying this, but I have something extra to add: I hate Twitter's decision to censor speech but I also hate a lot of the people on twitter (most of whom I don't follow, but they do tend to dominate the "trending" sections). Also, the algorithms don't seem the greatest. -Paul
[2021-09-14 16:46:48] - paul: consequently, i mostly hate facebook and twitter now. at least with reddit i feel like i'm mostly seeing what real people think is interesting. ~a
[2021-09-14 16:45:56] - paul: maybe you just don't like twitter?
thank god you sold all of your shares. i've noticed something about twitter and facebook: initially when i signed up for both they were mostly about seeing every bit of content from "everybody". then they both melded into seeing only what the algorithms wanted me to see (only showing me what keeps me hooked + what makes them the most profit). ~a[2021-09-14 16:04:39] - just as an anecdote talking with Michelle's families in Ecuador and mine in Bolivia, there's definitely seems to be a portion of the south american population that is anti-vaccine to varying degrees. - mig
[2021-09-14 15:56:14] - https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437623825181511686 And follow-ups. Kind of hard to believe that none of these tweets run afoul of twitter's rules. Throwing around terms like "Uncle Tomiana" and "coon" seem like it might go against their terms of service? I do enjoy seeing Joy Reid being called out on her hypocrisy, though. -Paul
[2021-09-14 15:52:42] - a: I didn't intend to make it sound clear cut at all. Yes, Republicans are more likely to be vaccine hesitant, but so are blacks and the poor. Both can be true. -Paul
[2021-09-14 15:48:35] - https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437532566945341441 Because I find it humorous and it is (barely) relevant: I present this tweet, which apparently is NOT misinformation, so we know the vaccine isn't completely safe.
-Paul[2021-09-14 15:05:30] - paul: the data on that isn't as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. i've seen a lot of data that points at blacks and hispanics to being the "vaccine hesitant", and other data that points at whites to being the "vaccine hesitant". ~a
[2021-09-14 14:32:57] - It's also worth noting that, as much as this has been implied to be a problem with conservatives (and to a decent extent, it is), vaccine hesitancy is also something that pops up a lot in poor and black populations. So the effects of it will fall heavy on those groups as well.-Paul
[2021-09-14 14:21:32] - a: I'm asking you consider it might be possible (didn't meant to make assumptions on how it would go either way). Obviously I don't think it will be either extreme (0% or 100%) but somewhere in between. It just seems to me that there could easily be a significant portion of people who, if this mandate goes into effect, are going to be effectively excluded from the possibility of working anywhere (except I guess the USPS). -Paul
[2021-09-14 14:18:02] - Another crux of the argument is the principled one, right? I guess it's odd to me that the liberal position seems to be that a single bakery refusing to make a cake for a specific almost once in a lifetime event is an unacceptable restriction on personal freedom, but the federal government forcing nearly all companies to require all their employees to be injected with something is necessary. -paul
[2021-09-14 14:17:12] - paul: there is no mandate yet, right? (i'm seriously asking. i figured the mandate wasn't yet in effect). you're asking us to assume that "most aren't going to get vaccinated because of this mandate". i certainly don't think this is a safe assumption. ~a
[2021-09-14 14:14:58] - a: "if that were true, then we'd probably see 0ish vaccinations per day today, but we are not seeing that." I don't think that follows unless we were seeing 0 vaccinations per day before the mandate. Is there a change in the rate of vaccinations pre and post mandate? -Paul
[2021-09-14 14:14:11] - Daniel: "I guess that assumption is a large crux of the argument?" No, it's just part of it, but I think it's something that people often selectively forget. Just because something is made illegal, it doesn't magically make that thing stop happening. -Paul
[2021-09-13 17:08:15] - paul: i'll go with the opposite premise: if people are confronted with even minor annoyances (vaccines to go to school, vaccines to get on a plane), most will be willing to get vaccinated. biden's plan of requiring everybody in the federal government and people in companies larger than 100 to be vaccinated is actually far harsher (authoritarian?) than i thought we'd ever go. i'm actually kinda against that one maybe? ~a
[2021-09-13 17:01:41] - paul: at the current rate, we will be 75% partially-vaccinated by mid-january. ~a
[2021-09-13 16:53:01] - paul: i'm kinda with daniel, i don't follow your premise. if that were true, then we'd probably see 0ish vaccinations per day today, but we are not seeing that. ~a
[2021-09-13 16:44:08] - Paul: I guess that assumption is a large crux of the argument? What if we assume after not working for a month or two they all decide they have to get the vaccine even though they didn't want to? -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:42:51] - Daniel: What if we assume that, for the majority of the current unvaccinated population, most aren't going to get vaccinated because of this mandate? Then it effectively becomes a law where X% of the population isn't allowed to work. -Paul
[2021-09-13 16:41:50] - "it needs to be considered" - I think this is one of the tricks / problems/ hard things with gov. Do we know it wasn't considered? Do we know that it was? I think its reasonable to assume it was but also that doesn't mean it definitely was. -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:41:40] - Daniel: "Are you advocating that 'we' / the gov / whoever shouldn't try to get people vaccinated?" No, just that we shouldn't be judging laws based on their intent alone. Here's a better analogy: anti-abortion laws. I imagine you (and Adrian) probably agree that they ultimately do more harm than good even if the intent is to reduce harm. -Paul
[2021-09-13 16:40:15] - a: So are the number of potential COVID cases in that hospital (or all the other places of business that we're not hearing about) that are being prevented worth the trade-off of the lack of medical attention? I have no idea, and I suspect we'll never know, but I think it needs to be considered. -Paul
[2021-09-13 16:40:14] - Paul: How do you think we should get people to get vaccinated? -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:39:46] - a: made up number for loading back up in car / driving to other place / checking in to new place. -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:38:20] - a: "the main intent is decreasing harm" Right, by getting people vaccinated. This reminds me of the war on drugs where the government did all sorts of things with the intent to decrease harm (make drugs illegal then people won't get addicted and OD!) but in reality it probably did more harm than good. -Paul
[2021-09-13 16:27:16] - "putting an hour interruption in somewhere isn't without cost" where did this number come from? an hour interruption is unacceptable during a pregnancy imo. ~a
[2021-09-13 16:26:14] - daniel: "I do agree with Paul that there is some cost there" well we're all obviously in agreement there. biting the bullet has cost, i thought i did touch on that. ~a
[2021-09-13 16:23:24] - paul: can we consider the possibility that this hospital has other problems? i don't think i've ever seen a suburban or rural hospital rated this low on google maps (3.2). ~a
[2021-09-13 16:22:25] - I dunno - just saying birth is an involved process that putting an hour interruption in somewhere isn't without cost. I'm still on the society probably wins in the need to get everyone vaccinated but I do agree with Paul that there is some cost there. -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:21:27] - Maybe I'm thinking of nicu as subset of maternity ward but maybe not... So maybe its only regular birth stuff they can't really support? So then they could just deliver baby and then drive to other place with maternity ward? Though that is also not ideal. Andrea had a fairly significant bleeding thing occur about 30 or 40 minutes after Nathan was born. Was handled fine but unsure how that would have gone in an ambulance. -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:16:38] - a: Maybe? Probably not? I'm not sure? What do you do with a baby if you don't have a maternity ward? Is it worse to deliver the baby and not be able to support it or to tell the woman stop pushing and drive an hour that way where there is a nicu etc? Deliver the baby then have them drive to other place but that assumes no complications? -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:13:43] - daniel: i looked up lowville, ny. there are many options for pregnancy wards within 20km drive, but more importantly i'm like preeeetty confident if you show up (in an emergency situation) pregnant at lewis county general hospital, with a baby coming out, they won't send you away. ~a
[2021-09-13 16:13:39] - Paul: or just not this way? -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:13:17] - Paul: Are you advocating that 'we' / the gov / whoever shouldn't try to get people vaccinated? Given that unvaccinated people make life harder for society in general I'm not sure that makes sense to me. -Daniel
[2021-09-13 16:09:11] - paul: "a way to make unvaccinated people get vaccinated" i disagree. this is the secondary intent. the main intent is decreasing harm. "but do we have evidence that is happening". yes. there are millions of people still getting vaccines every day still today. "people are willing to walk away from their jobs and chance death" as long as they promise not to infect anybody, i'm fine with it (/j). ~a
[2021-09-13 16:03:54] - And we can think they huge idiots or whatever, but it doesn't change how they're acting. -Paul
[2021-09-13 16:02:00] - What if we consider the possibility that some percentage of the population is just never going to get their COVID vaccine? I mean, that seems to be what we're seeing now, right? Despite the evidence and the people dying and the punishments, people are willing to walk away from their jobs and chance death. -Paul
[2021-09-13 15:59:13] - I think it's worth considering intent vs outcome. I think a lot of people supporting the mandate are doing so because they see it as a way to make unvaccinated people get vaccinated, but do we have evidence that is happening? Or instead is it just causing unvaccinated people to get further estranged from the rest of us? -Paul
[2021-09-13 15:44:26] - a: No idea on this hospital in particular but out in the country there aren't always four hospitals in easy driving range and labor isn't always a thing where you have two hours or something to drive to a further away hospital. -Daniel
[2021-09-13 15:43:33] - Paul: Yeah I think its not good for that hospital to be impacted but I think on a society level trying to get everyone vaccinated and reduce variants might be worth lumps along the way. -Daniel
[2021-09-13 14:38:05] - my bet is that unvaccinated nurses mostly catch and transmit covid on their hours and days off. but mostly is not the same as 100%? ~a
[2021-09-13 14:35:54] - paul: honestly these are probably pretty hard choices. and sometimes you gotta bite the bullet. biting the bullet doesn't come without dire consequences. but not biting the bullet doesn't come without dire consequences either. you say "masking up with some high quality medical masks and getting routinely COVID tested", but i say that the CDC uses that info in their calculus too. ~a
[2021-09-13 14:34:10] - paul: "unvaccinated person is considered so dangerous that medical staffing shortages are considered preferable" i don't have enough information to make that decision. you could argue that biden doesn't either, but i presume he's doing this with the CDCs approval? (i'm honestly asking, but i can guess at the answer) ~a
[2021-09-13 14:32:56] - paul: "could either be on their own"
that's generally not the choice. on their own. jesus. the choice is: pick from these four wards in driving distance. no, actually, now its three because that shitty one was full of unvaccinated nurses. ~a[2021-09-13 14:28:32] - a: I suspect if a pregnant woman was giving birth in a hospital and was told they could either be on their own or have an unvaccinated doctor assist them.... many would choose to have that doctor. It would at least be nice to have the choice. -Paul
[2021-09-13 14:27:18] - a: "now that hospital won't be infecting any would be mothers and fathers" Were they before? Presumably they were masking up with some high quality medical masks and getting routinely COVID tested. I understand your point to a certain degree, but have we really gotten to the point where an unvaccinated person is considered so dangerous that medical staffing shortages are considered preferable? -Paul
[2021-09-13 13:59:08] - paul: my unpopular take: good. now that hospital won't be infecting any would be mothers and fathers. it is but one hospital. was that hospital delivering many babies before this? should they have been? (this also might not be an emergency situation: "unable to safely staff" their maternity department, probably means emergency situations will now be handled even more safely than before) ~a
[2021-09-13 13:30:46] - https://www.npr.org/2021/09/13/1036521499/covid-workers-resign-new-york-hospital-stops-baby-delivery This is an interesting unintended consequence of a COVID vaccine mandate: disrupting healthcare. -Paul
[2021-09-11 00:13:37] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/world/asia/us-air-strike-drone-kabul-afghanistan-isis.html rick-perry-oops.gif - mig
[2021-09-10 23:02:49] - yes and yes! ~a
[2021-09-10 21:30:59] - You guys remember / still good for SC2 tonight? -Daniel
[2021-09-10 21:26:39] - on the topic of overreach, i'm glad someone has finally said it, this is a matter of religion for us. ~a
[2021-09-10 20:47:34] - a: Like, eventually we got rid of that whole separate but equal thing, but it sure would've been nice if it was handled correctly the first time instead. -Paul
[2021-09-10 20:46:40] - a: "i think the judicial did their job here, right?" Eventually? I guess? I mean, the eviction stay was in place for over a year when it had the biggest impact and didn't get revoked until they tried to extend it, right? So yeah, it eventually worked out, but the whole situation wasn't ideal. -Paul
[2021-09-10 18:19:47] - paul: "cdc saying landlords can't evict people or whatever else" i think the judicial did their job here, right? scotus was like, no, the cdc can't do this. order. seems like its all working as designed here too. ~a
[2021-09-10 17:59:44] - paul: "we don't want to have to deal with this, you do it" i understand that you don't like this is how it is: but the fact of the matter this * is * how it is. if people truly hate how the executive is executing, THEN legislative can pass a damn law, OR judicial can rule on a damn law. the executive is disallowed from ignoring the other two branches. ~a
[2021-09-10 17:39:34] - a: or the CDC saying landlords can't evict people or whatever else. -Paul
[2021-09-10 17:39:16] - a: "all of those departments were given power" Right, that's my point. Congress basically said, "we don't want to have to deal with this, you do it". How many of the controversial changes to law that are affecting people now are actually things voted on by congress? Not many I can think of. It's the SEC making rules about coinbase accounts or Biden making executive orders around vaccine mandates... -Paul
[2021-09-10 17:26:18] - Paul: I also wish Congress was more active in getting things done. Also I think to some degree its why the executive branch was created to do things w/o waiting on Congress though I do imagine its not played out exactly as intended. -Daniel
[2021-09-10 16:55:33] - paul: except for the doe (energy) all of those departments were given power by law signed into effect by presidents in black-and-white photographs. i.e. always has been. and regarding the doe, i think that's a weird one to complain about: they mostly handle (handled) fissile material since ww2. having a federal department to handle this task seems to be fairly noncontroversial, do you agree? ~a
[2021-09-10 16:44:50] - paul: yes. ~a
[2021-09-10 16:44:16] - a: Sure, but I think we can agree there's a difference in degrees between the level of bureaucracy in 1700 and now, right? The FCC, SEC, IRS, department of education, department of energy, etc didn't exist back then. -Paul
[2021-09-10 16:41:44] - paul: always has been meme. seriously though, its always been that way: the Cabinet of the United States dates back to the 1700s, and they were never elected. i'm willing to bet what rules the cabinet has handled vs what rules the legislative has handled has ebbed-and-flowed, but seriously, calling them "unelected bureaucrats" glosses over the fact that its always been that way since george washington. ~a
[2021-09-10 16:37:16] - The law vs executive order thing is a big one for me. I know it's a long running gripe of mine, but seriously, does the legislative branch actually make any of the rules anymore? Why does it seem like EVERY new rule is a result of an executive order or unelected bureaucrat making up rules? -Paul
[2021-09-10 14:59:26] - this link seems to suggest that the business would pay a fine, not the employees. i guess the employees would be forced onto LWOP if they refuse the test? still not clear to me, but i guess we'll find out. ~a
[2021-09-10 14:58:09] - a: Hmm it will be interesting to see what they do with the differences between now and the 1905 case. Law vs executive order. State vs fed gov. But there definitely do seem to be similarities and the quote from the justice about everyone having to suffer some restraint so that everyone can actually have liberty seems pretty applicable. -Daniel
[2021-09-10 14:53:08] - paul: $150 fine (adjusted for inflation) to skip out on the smallpox vaccine. this was backed up by the supreme court: because pandemic. we haven't yet talked about the details of the biden plan. what is the penalty if you refuse to get tested? (the vaccine isn't actually mandatory: you are allowed to go the weekly-testing route) i googled around and couldn't find info on the fine. ~a
[2021-09-10 13:59:52] - Daniel: Like, it's one thing to say: "I want anybody coming over my house to be vaccinated" and another thing to say: "I am going to make everybody in America who works a non-USPS job be vaccinated". -Paul
[2021-09-10 13:59:12] - Daniel: I think it's the difference between some group requiring you to vaccinate in order to do some activity, and the government requiring all groups to require all their members to vaccinate period. -Paul
[2021-09-10 13:36:59] - Paul: I could believe its a overreach of executive power but I don't know if it actually is. I know I've been required to get vaccines / shots for different things in my life. I guess the difference was that they were required by the individual company / school district (state?) and not the federal gov? -Daniel
[2021-09-10 13:20:35] - Biden announces what I consider to be a massive overreach of federal executive power in terms of mandating vaccines.... and the front page of CNN still has just as many references to Trump as it does to Biden. The media really have a fixation problem. -Paul
[2021-09-10 13:13:37] - a: "its still a tone-deaf article title regardless" Sure, maybe. But sometimes tone-deaf articles need to be written? I mean, if cancer were cured tomorrow that would be amazing and great obviously, but it would also destroy a bunch of cancer treatment income streams for major companies and that could be worth noting, tone-deaf or not. -Paul
[2021-09-10 03:09:19] - paul/mig: it seems that cnbc agrees that their headline was shit. (though their change was fairly minor). they added "and similar companies" to the title. ~a
[2021-09-09 22:13:12] - a: neither of those are political speech. Both are borderline/actual harassment. - mig
[2021-09-09 22:11:12] - paul: i'll disagree, I think a business news network job should be to highlight issues regarding individual economic freedom. headline is super shit take. - mig
[2021-09-09 20:57:12] - in the "paul hates companies that fire their employees over political speech" file, this guy is fired from mighty hand. he was in a video telling two ladies that they shouldn't wear skimpy bathing suites on the beach. and, this lady is fired from sap. she was in a video coughing on people (sheep) at the grocery store. ~a
[2021-09-09 20:08:29] - paul: my major gripe with your assessment is this: its still a tone-deaf article title regardless. if i said microsoft is losing millions of dollars a year (because, say, they're getting their ass handed to them by apple or something), i think the article title would still be tone-deaf. if someone is "losing" money (because someone else is "making" money), then you are saying it wrong? ~a
[2021-09-09 20:06:41] - daniel: i posted this here in 2014. ~a
[2021-09-09 20:00:25] - a: Nah - I read the article and was like finally a use case that makes sense! I think you talked about global transfers before I don't remember if remittances came up or not but yeah those make sense for crypto (bitcoin). -Daniel
[2021-09-09 19:58:07] - paul: i hear you and agree with your assessment. but i'll take it one step further without disagreeing with you: businesses can and should use bitcoin. bitcoin being "hard to use" seems like a perfect avenue for businesses (like, seriously, even western union) to step in. ~a
[2021-09-09 19:55:57] - a: I'll give a tiny defense of the headline: This is from CNBC, which is focused on business news. Western Union is a business. El Salvadorian citizens are not. It wouldn't really be a CNBC news story to talk about citizens being better off. -Paul
[2021-09-09 19:53:39] - daniel: i was thinking you might respond. bitcoin used for remittance seems like the hardest thing to argue against, but i was hoping that you'd give it a try.
~a[2021-09-09 19:52:24] - a: This can be "Fuck the media" week here on the message board. -Daniel
[2021-09-09 19:48:16] - the title of this article kinda pisses me off. shouldn't it be "el salvador’s new bitcoin wallets could save el salvador's worst off citizens $400 million a year"??? ~a
[2021-09-09 17:31:23] - more serious ivermectin news ~a
[2021-09-09 17:02:24] - a: Yeah, sorry, I wasn't necessarily trying to point the finger at anybody here (although, like you say, I think we're all bound to fall for it on occasion). I don't even necessarily think it's some tremendous evil. I was just pointing it out as a way to explain how we can sometimes see things so differently. -Paul
[2021-09-09 17:01:53] - paul: meh, i think your problem there is that captivating news sells. so national news will always be biased and fucked. ~a
[2021-09-09 17:01:03] - a: But when the roles are reversed, and it's a black Republican the victim and a white (presumably liberal) the perpetrator... then the benefit of the doubt is given and it's like: "meh, probably just a random psycho and she probably didn't even think of the implications of the type of mask she was wearing". -Paul
[2021-09-09 16:59:50] - a: "but i know about this effect, and constantly try to consider it" Honestly, most of the time I have been thinking about it, I have been thinking about the national media. So to take the video Miguel posted as an example: If it was some white Republican in a gorilla mask throwing an egg at Stacey Abrams, I think the media would be all over it and it would be front page news because it confirms this idea that Republicans are all racist. -Pa
[2021-09-09 16:59:24] - paul: in this specific case daniel didn't see the mask . . . so i think this situation is not that. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:58:30] - paul: i get your point, and i see it happening in myself often, but i think we sometimes are able to get past these inconsistencies. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:57:42] - a: But let's say it was.... I dunno... AOC and we learned that she wrote a report in high school about how whites are all racist or something.... then I would see it as confirmation that she's racist (this analogy fell apart for all sorts of reasons, but hopefully you get my point). -Paul
[2021-09-09 16:57:13] - paul: "Giving the benefit of the doubt to some groups and willing to believe the worst of others". but i know about this effect, and constantly try to consider it. like the example of stacy abrams' chair: i'm like 1000% sure i'd have come to the same conclusion (that it didn't violate twitter policies) if the roles were reversed. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:56:27] - a: I'll use me as an example: I've followed Ron Paul for a long time and listened to a lot of his speeches and don't think he has a racist bone in his body, so I give him a huge benefit of the doubt even when things like the newsletters under his name have racist content in it. -Paul
[2021-09-09 16:55:25] - paul: "we judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions"??? ~a
[2021-09-09 16:54:52] - Yeah I think with the mask you loose the benefit of the doubt. So while I would say its possible its not racist and maybe some terrible coincidence it seems unlikely and probably racist. -Daniel
[2021-09-09 16:54:46] - a: "this is a level of benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't offer to a member of the right-wing" This is 100% something I have been thinking a lot about lately. I think a lot of the disagreement between us here (and differences among R's and D's in the nation in general) comes down to one seemingly tiny thing: Giving the benefit of the doubt to some groups and willing to believe the worst of others. -Paul
[2021-09-09 16:51:56] - daniel: yeah, there was a mask. if you didn't see the mask, i guess i'd be with you that it wasn't super obvious what it was all about. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:50:32] - oh you didn't notice the gorilla mask. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:50:09] - a: Depends on the member? Context matters. If it was a rando R that I didn't know anything about it would still be maybe. I didn't notice the gorilla mask. That might be a tipping factor. -Daniel
[2021-09-09 16:49:53] - daniel: with zero extra context, this is pretty obviously racist. likely intentionally so, but that can't be known as easily. she might be a loon, but again, benefit of the doubt that we wouldn't give the out-group. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:47:58] - daniel: "its possible race doesn't p lay into it" this is a level of benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't offer to a member of the right-wing. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:47:52] - If we find out that she's throw eggs at four other politicians and those were all black/poc as well then more likely yes. -Daniel
[2021-09-09 16:47:48] - I might have given the benefit of the doubt, but the GORILLA MASK kind of kills it for me. - mig
[2021-09-09 16:46:32] - So maybe? -Daniel
[2021-09-09 16:46:26] - a: I mean its possible race doesn't p lay into it. I don't know much about him or her other than the video? Maybe he is hard core flat eather who wants to teach everyone about the flat earth and she is a middle school science teacher fed up with flat earth conspiracies and couldn't take it anymore?! I have no idea. -Daniel
[2021-09-09 16:44:55] - she does but you totally can't hear what it is. i think i hear her drop the f-bomb (?), but i'm not sure. the super loud music doesn't help. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:43:13] - daniel: only maybe?
~a[2021-09-09 16:43:12] - I didn't listen with audio. does she yell / say anything? -Daniel
[2021-09-09 16:42:22] - maybe? -Daniel
[2021-09-09 16:42:01] - yes. ~a
[2021-09-09 16:40:03] - https://youtu.be/nrp7qtg0JgM is this attack racist? - mig
[2021-09-09 15:17:43] - Paul: I had no idea. Sad for Morpheus. -Daniel
[2021-09-09 14:50:07] - Daniel: TIL that Morpheus apparently canonically died in the Matrix Online game, which is why he seems to be recast in this movie. -Paul
[2021-09-09 14:27:55] - paul: looks interesting but i'm curious how it fits into the established timeline of things. -Daniel
[2021-09-09 13:38:56] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ix7TUGVYIo What do we think? Shameless nostalgia grab? Intriguing continuation? Both? -Paul
[2021-09-09 13:38:34] - a: I lol'd. -Paul
[2021-09-09 13:34:54] - mig: I think the headline / conclusion is wrong so not trying to move goal posts but I also don't think its 100% false like Paul / reason.com said either. The doctor did connect them. Not to the degree of being the main reason though. -Daniel
[2021-09-08 23:02:51] - daniel: this feels like a moving the goal posts. The main thrust of the story (ivermectin overdoses were clogging ER rooms) was 100% false. Quibbling over whether there were a few people who did show up at the ER who did overdose on ivermectin (which no one really disputes) is kind of asanine. - mig
[2021-09-08 22:18:26] - in much more serious news, ivermectin saved my best friend's life ~a
[2021-09-08 21:43:23] - https://kfor.com/on-air/seen-on-tv/more-of-dr-mcelyeas-interview-with-kfor/ I think it got pushed off to the next page already but if you go there the thats where the doctor does link ER back up to some cases of Ivermectin use. -Daniel
[2021-09-08 21:42:23] - I would change the article if I were in charge of it, but I don't think its 100% false. Maybe like 90? Unsure how to quantify that. -Daniel
[2021-09-08 21:40:57] - Paul: I thought in the extended video it wasn't "not true" it just was overly stated. The doctor said the ER was backed up and that "some of the examples" of other things were people with Ivermectin issues. So yeah I think the headline / conclusion was wrong / dumb but was based somewhat on the doc's statement. -Daniel
[2021-09-08 20:58:17] - meh, i concede that point. its almost entirely made up. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:56:56] - a: The almost is pulling a lot of weight? The original story was quoting a doctor (who hasn't worked there in months) about gun shot victims being kept in ambulances (not true?) because emergency room beds are being taken up by Ivermectin ODs (also not true?). What part of the story is right? -Paul
[2021-09-08 20:33:12] - paul: "everybody ends up believing something false". what's your point? you think the original sensationalist story should have been removed by twitter? if so, you have lost me. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:32:12] - paul: the "almost" is pulling a lot of weight. you may not use twitter to share false or misleading information about covid-19 which may lead to harm. this doesn't apply, imo. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:31:56] - a: Way too often there is some sensational story which confirms a bunch of people's prior biases and so it gets spread like wildfire. Then the nuanced clarification comes out (which often completely contradicts the original story) and doesn't get shared at all, so everybody ends up believing something false. -Paul
[2021-09-08 20:30:04] - a: To bring things full circle: I feel like whatever the official rules, if you're going to try to improve the discourse by removing misinformation, this whole thing with the Ivermectin / Oklahoma / gunshot victims story which I think most would agree is almost entirely made up would seem to be a prime candidate for some sort of tagging or removal. -Paul
[2021-09-08 20:21:51] - paul: though i agree its quite the quagmire, i feel like giving a voice to misinformation seems equally bad. maybe worse? i'm not sure. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:19:41] - a: "maybe you just don't like twitter?" Close. I really hate that they decided to wade into this idea of censoring "misinformation". -Paul
[2021-09-08 20:18:39] - paul: from january: "well, it sounds like we all agree the lindell situation is (at least) borderline. i had asked earlier about *what* bindell said, and didn't see any info on that. i've tried to google around, and can't find anything." ~a
[2021-09-08 20:17:30] - a: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/twitter-has-permanently-banned-the-corporate-my-pillow-account-after-founder-mike-lindell-posted-from-it-11612286764 So why was the MyPillow CEO banned from twitter? It sounds like his "only" crime was claiming the election was stolen after the fact? -Paul
[2021-09-08 20:14:05] - paul: in other words, after the election, for it to be removed by twitter you'd have to literally interfere with the implementation of the result. iow, i feel like calling it "stolen" after inauguration, probably doesn't apply? calling it abrams' chair, definitely doesn't unless you're interfering with the implementation of the result. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:11:47] - paul: the section of the civic integrity policy that comes even close to applying is "misleading claims about the results or outcome of a civic process which calls for or could lead to interference with the implementation of the results of the process, e.g. claiming victory before election results have been certified, inciting unlawful conduct to prevent the procedural or practical implementation of election results". this is not that. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:08:22] - paul: it'd have to be "The Democrat who is sitting in Romney's chair just signed a despicable voter suppression bill into law to take America back to Jim Crow". so, i'd be like HUH? but, i still wouldn't expect twitter to remove it. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:06:24] - paul: "somebody tweets out that Biden is sitting in Trump's office right now" that's not what happened, but ok. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:06:12] - paul: "Abrams was never governor" yes, i considered this briefly. you definitely have a point here. still doesn't change my mind, but i did think about that a while. ~a
[2021-09-08 20:06:04] - a: So maybe the better analogy would be saying that Biden is sitting in... Romney's office? -Paul
[2021-09-08 20:04:56] - a: Although this isn't the right comparison. Trump DID one time have the oval office. Abrams was never governor. So I don't see what interpretation it could be other than she was supposed to be governor but was cheated somehow. -Paul
[2021-09-08 20:03:45] - a: So somebody tweets out that Biden is sitting in Trump's office right now and you don't think there's any implication there? That's a tweet that twitter would be okay with? -Paul
[2021-09-08 19:54:24] - paul: "it's pretty specific, and this probably wouldn't apply" you also have to be making a false statement. saying that it's false or misleading because the words "abrams' chair" were thrown in is a bit of a stretch. ~a
prev <-> next