nikcheerla

Is this Poe's Law in action or something?

This comment scares me in a way I can't really put my finger on.

Maybe it's the implicit assumption that oppression outweighs everything else – i.e someone who is black ipso facto lives a worse life than someone who is white, disregarding all other factors.

I feel like if a critical majority of people actually believed that all colleges were just "factories of oppression, sexual assault, and white supremacy", then we'd have some kind of civil war.

I'd love that. The problem is that it's really, really hard to criticize your own tribe. (People who made a habit of criticizing their tribe in the ancestral environment were killed off very quickly).

Any pertinent examples of "privileged white kids demanding trigger warnings for topics that call out their privilege?" I've never heard of an incident where conservative kids on campus demanded that a progressive speaker's event be canceled – all of the incidents I've seen in the news have been the other way around. (Of course, the news does tend to have its own narratives it wants to push ...)

I think the term has sort of evolved to become less dismissive.

There's a LOT of biological data out there. With a little bit of effort, researchers can design AI systems that beat doctors at most specialized tasks, in both computer vision and genetic data analysis. The question is how such systems can actually be used in practice.

They don't. Doctors in the NHS work longer hours than their U.S counterparts, and those who go through the system tend to move to either private practice, Australia, or the U.S after their residencies. For now, the system is still working, but it's clear that medicine is a much less lucrative/desirable job in the U.K than, for example the U.S. (And maybe that's a good thing – I don't know).

When did I dispute ignorance is a bad thing? I'm just saying that the first stop in fighting ignorance is looking at yourself? What inconvenient facts do you refuse to accept? Where do you apply standards unevenly? Where are you showing confirmation bias?

Telling people from another tribe that they are ignorant has never changed anything.

The answer is slate.com, clearly.

Yeah, it's not a strawman exactly, but it's a - clayman? Gingerbread man?

Anecdotally, while Britain's medical system has less wait times, doctors working for the NHS are chronically overworked and underpaid. Many move to Australia or go into private practice after completing their residencies.

The "petty tribalism inherent to the uneducated"? As if the salary class – highly-educated left-learning professionals – doesn't have it's own tribal affiliations, it's own status markers, its own inconvenient facts that it excludes for the sake of a higher narrative?

Seriously?

This.

Read schiffern's comment. I know nothing about engineering so I can't tell if what he's saying is correct or not – but that's the point, isn't it?

Obligatory xkcd about free speech:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Gawker's outing was free speech. Peter Thiel giving money to Hulk Hogan to fight his legal battle was also free speech. There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to protect free speech, yet disliking someone's specific use of free speech.

Accusations of cognitive dissonance are fruitless – there's a sizable block of 'gay conservative Christians' who probably think that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and that their beliefs make sens given their worldview.

I suspect you are confused about the facts of the case – specifically, this has nothing to do with Peter Thiel's outing and everything to do with the fact that Gawker released Hulk Hogan's sex tape to the public and a court found that to be an unethical violation of privacy.

Yes, but there are varying levels of 'moral acceptability', and online privacy violations are on the low end of that. I find it hard to believe that most people would act differently from Thiel in that situation.

Be charitable. Clearly that's not actually what 'gay Christians' believe.

True, but that just points to the fact that ad hominem should not be dogmatically a logical fallacy.

I was just discussing what other people believe. I completely agree that the government should be out of the marriage business anyways.

That's a good point – I was just going off of public figures who have stated similar views. I'd like to see that data actually. I know a grand total of one evangelical and maybe 5 non-agnostic Christians, so I can't say for sure what the set of 'gay Christians' believe. Maybe that speaks to a larger problem?

Who are you asking? I'm atheist, and I don't think any other posts in this discussion ever reference 'biblical models of marriage".

Why exactly do you think those two positions are necessarily in opposition? You can be proudly gay while still believing that 'marriage' is only between men and women. AFAIK this is a pretty common belief among those who are both Christian and gay.

Not sure I understand?

Well, I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the media is reporting this as joke, and not as "Trump openly threatens to kill Hillary Clinton."

Why is this news again? Is there nothing more to be reported on than another Trump off-color insult? Couldn't we, you know, actually have a serious discussion of "issues", or do those not exist anymore?

I would argue we could solve this if we had a better education system. It seems that they go through the schooling system for 8 years and learn nothing that helps them get an upwardly mobile job.

Maybe part of the problem is that our schooling system is designed for salary class professionals looking to go to college – because those are the people who design curriculum.

The prediction markets say something like 75% Clinton to 25% Trump. Either you know something they don't (and are about to make a lot of money) – or you probably shouldn't be making predictions with that degree of confidence. Especially considering how unpredictable the elections have been thus far.