Elliot Shares Links (2021)

I’m going to share links in this topic. I will generally explain little or nothing (if I wanted to write much explanation, I’d give a link its own topic). There are a few reasons:

  • People are at this forum partly because they’re interested in what I think and consider worth sharing.
  • I’ve already written a ton, so people often already know what my opinion is.
  • Questions are fine. I’m just not going to preemptively explain everything.
  • Some people here are biased to agree with me, but I want people to form their own opinions.

I mostly share links I like or agree with (in some way – not fully because most stuff has flaws), but not always. Sometimes I just think it’s interesting in some way, e.g. it could be an example of something bad but important.

I don’t think other people should share unexplained links. They should bring up an opinion or goal (e.g. question). Note that stating/summarizing what the links says is not an opinion or goal (summarizing accurately would be a goal, which you could state). Expressing an opinion or goal generally enables criticism (your opinion could be wrong; your post could fail at your goal) or a way to make progress (someone could help with your goal, e.g. help figure out the answer to your question).

You can discuss the links here. You could also use reply as linked topic if you want to make a large discussion with its own topic.

thread not single tweet

he also replied to someone about the thread

1 Like

The Javert paradox rears its ugly head « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science and related:

EDIT that’s pretty bad that the OneBox (link preview thing) cuts off the title. the key word was the next one: obsessive. You can’t even hover it to get the full title

EDIT title cut off again. ugh… it’s:

From not knowing what an object is is to my first software engineering job in 6 months, self taught, in the UK

9 posts were split to a new topic: Hikaru Nakamura Chess Drama

This has some connection to my claims that suppressing positive outliers is extremely bad.

I think the vaccines are good, but I’m against deplatforming, censorship, social credit scores, etc., especially when they’re hidden from the affected people.

Asmongold is pretty consistently reasonable without being very intellectual/philosophical about it. He’s got common sense and pretty good values.

I generally like people who aren’t fully right wing or fully left wing. If someone really knows what they’re talking about like Ayn Rand, then purity is great. (Not that she was full right wing! She e.g. disliked Reagan and the religious right. She’s like fully pro-capitalism though and has some other strong positions.) But if they don’t know a ton, and they’re just fully on one side because of tribalism, that sucks and they ought to be more moderate and stick closer to common sense and tradition like Asmongold or All Gas No Breaks do (also Tim Pool and Upper Echelon Gaming).

Minor correction: Asmongold is wrong about Russia beating the Nazis.

I’m also in favour of the vaccines, which is part of why I’m against censorship. If an antivax person has their objections censored then it’s more difficult for people to find and address their objections. Censorship also feeds the idea that there’s something so bad about the vaccines that criticism of them has to be suppressed so people will taken them.

Also, there are some people who shouldn’t get the vaccine. Are you allowed to mention a situation in which a person shouldn’t take the vaccine on FB? And if people who shouldn’t take a vaccine end up taking it and getting ill that won’t decrease vaccine concerns.

3 tweet thread