The main difference between the alt-right and the radical 'cancel-culture' left is that the alt-right uses memes and mostly pokes fun (admittedly in a hateful, bigoted way) whereas the radical left has no hint of irony or humor and is quite literally out to destroy people's reputations and livelihoods

lmao

the ratio of genuinely funny/clever memes that the right has created in the past 10 years vs. the left is IMO probably like, 1,000:1

the left *literally* cant meme..because the victim culture would never allow them to

good memes are usually edgy

the left cant be edgy. They cant insult marginalized groups

lol

the left has cancelled nobel prize winners, lmao. And no im not talking about the racist james watson. Look up Tim Hunt, 2001 nobel prize in medicine

the left has cancelled nobel prize winners, lmao. And no im not talking about the racist james watson. Look up Tim Hunt, 2001 nobel prize in medicine

Hey guys I gotta run- this has been an awesome convo and feel free to add me on discord if anyone wants to chat. Peace! ✌️

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html

my favorite article on Dawkins

Haha

"Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas."

"The common criticism was that Dawkins was too strong in his criticism of religion, and one nonreligious professor of biology referred to him as a “fundamental atheist”. "He feels compelled to take the evidence way beyond that which other scientists would regard as possible. ... I want [students] to develop [science] in their own lives. And I think it's necessary to understand what science does address directly."

Another described his work as a “crusade, basically”, and said that though he was right his work is “deliberately designed to alienate religious people”."

a specific SCIENTIFIC claim? Well sure...

I would agree with you if someone said "Evolution is wrong because the bible says so, and that is a scientific fact"

but if someone who happens to be a Christian is doing research or analysis and doesnt literally lie or deceive people with fake data, it wouldnt be their reasoning thats in question itd be their personal beliefs, which is of course (anti-religious) ad hominem

never seen or read anything from him

I think I saw like, 2 minutes of a debate from him vs. dillahunty

wasnt compelled by either side

got bored and clicked on something else

lol

everyone hates richard dawkins

jk

did u see that independent article tho

it is pretty funny honestly

> "Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas."

this is incredibly funny imo

'We interviewed 137 scientists on their favorite foods and 40 spoke unfavorably of Richard dawkins'

ask him why objects fall towards the ground instead of in any other direction when dropped

altho im sure he has some rehearsed rebuttal to that

that one really stumps them

'LOOK, UP IS UP, DOWN IS DOWN'

that honestly is their explanation

ohhh he's one of those

cant argue that

too compelling

paywall unfortunately but you can get the gist

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ending-religion-is-a-bad-idea-says-richard-dawkins-sqqdbmcpq

😮

Reading now

thanks for posting that

it looks like the only distinction is whether or not he said "would" vs "could/might"

While promoting his new book, Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide, at The Times and The Sunday Times Cheltenham Literature Festival, Dawkins made the point that if religion were abolished, it might “give people a license to do really bad things.” He referenced evidence that security camera surveillance of customers in shops did appear to deter shoplifting, adding that people might feel free to do wrong in the absence of a “divine spy camera in the sky reading their every thought.”

not that meaningful of a distinction imo bc its obviously speculative either way

yeah i mean fair enough

well we still dont have the actual quote

but yeah the headline is clickbait lol

for sure

How can we measure wellbeing

That's not a valid answer

Lol

You could say that in response to a question about how we can measure anything...

what if someone has a distorted idea of what wellbeing is

then they shouldn't attempt to maximize wellbeing for themself or others

Whether or not someone * is * abiding by the scientific method doesn't mean they aren't going to feel like they are

and act on what they feel is the conclusion they arrived at via the scientific method

well..right. So what do we do? The worldview just says 'maximize wellbeing' and im an idiot and i tried to use the scientific method and the conclusion i arrived at was 'go around smacking people in the face'

👁️ 💋 👁️

thePangburns moral imperative is flawed. It tells us what to do but not how to do it. It's like saying 'Do what you were already doing but stop making mistakes'

hows that helpful

lmao

> Maximize wellbeing for yourself and those around you. We can measure wellbeing.
@m.miller

im responding to this

how is that a mischaracterization?

So the implication here is that the default way people are acting is not an attempt to maximize wellbeing for ourselves and those around us?

I believe he said 'this is already how people act'

when i talked with him briefly yesterday

and said that its like how society is set up

...

Mikayla.... (Michaela?)

no offense but all you ever do is conjecture when I make points

'no thats not true at all. You have no evidence. No thats not accurate'

can you explain why

"No, that's not an implication. I have no idea how you got that." I clearly got that from you saying my point about 'do what you're already doing' being "NOTHING" like the maximizing wellbeing thing

clearly, if it has nothing to do with "What we're already doing" it is implied that we...are not already..doing it...

okay...so. What do you think like the basic motivational principles people act on are

like take a hypothetical person that youre introducing the moral system of "Maximize wellbeing for yourself and those around you. We can measure wellbeing. " to. How will this change how they act? How were they acting before learning about this proposal?

...

K

Watched the video, didn't explain or address any of my questions. But okay

https://youtu.be/nHVR5-RnLj8?t=4554 you can watch from here to hear my question and hear pangburn say 'its how we attempt to live anyway'

1:18:00 - He says we're already acting this way, which is evolutionary, but cultural bugs are "getting in the way of it" - so my characterization is accurate insofar as it's saying "Do what you were already doing but stop letting cultural bugs influence you to make mistakes"

which was my original characterization

yes, pretty much

its like telling someone who runs a hedge fund 'maximize your own profit and the profit of everyone invested in your hedge fund'

lol

Great idea! How?

unless they werent already trying to do that for some reason, i dont see how its a helpful thing to point out. and even if they werent doing it already, it doesnt give them any information on how to do it

you could also invoke the scientific method for how to get rich in the stock market

clearly its not that simple and tons of people lose all their money

you can def test it on some level

in a methodological way

its just not perfect

bc theres way too many variables

similar to human cognition and behavior

you could do that with a simulation of the market

just not the real one

like the field of technical analysis is basically exactly that