I took some small issue with Bret's tweet but I also took issue with many of the responses. My issue was a bit separate, though, in that I don't like the pragmatic reasons given for "entertaining" conspiracy theories. I think we should just treat them like any other propositions.
-
-
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @HPluckrose and
i.e. if they seem like they have low prior probability, we should reject them until we have better reason not to and if they don't, we should entertain them. The idea of entertaining them or explicitly not entertaining them based on what social effects might happen loses me.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @HPluckrose and
James Lindsay Retweeted Bret Weinstein
Meanwhile, it's made far more clear.https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1055914971014426624?s=19 …
James Lindsay added,
Bret WeinsteinVerified account @BretWeinsteinNonsense. I'll gladly acknowledge that wild speculation about conspiracy has serious costs. That is obvious. What divides us is the wisdom of shutting down anyone who entertains a hypothesis based on conspiracy--that facile solution makes conspiracy safe and tyranny inevitable. https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1055893083370348544 …1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @HPluckrose and
Yeah I don't like the idea of just shutting down conspiracy theories for pragmatic reasons either. Especially with a president in office who's all but completely unhinged. The likelihood of the Bush administration doing 9/11 might be a lot lower than Trump's dumb ass trying it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @ConceptualJames and
I'm part joking but I think the point is sound.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @ConceptualJames and
What would you do about this one? I fell on the conspiracy theory side with it, I must admit but I had an argument for that which was language analysis!https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/do-not-walk-your-dog-here-muslims-dont-like-dogs-police-investigate-provocative-sign-in-london-park-9460061.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
I'm not sure. Could be an individual Muslim who doesn't like dogs, some anti-Islam group wanting to cause division, an individual extremist who doesn't like dogs, or a group actually trying to intimidate people. I feel like there's be more if it was an organized group though.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @HPluckrose and
Living there and knowing more about the area might fill in a lot of my priors better.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @HPluckrose and
Why would a muslim person use the phrase “muslims don’t like dogs”? It’s very strange language usage imo

1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ElleWest26 @HPluckrose and
I think that's a valid point. Of the candidates, I'd personally put a bit more weight on it being put up by non Muslims to create division. I haven't but a ton of thought into it though and my priors might be different if I lived there and, say, saw Muslims intimidating ppl there
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yes. It is the language of anti-Muslims not Islamists. We had Muslim patrols near here. The language is self-righteous assertions and demands for respect for them.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ElleWest26 and
Maybe one could think that it was put up by someone who was ESL too I guess as it's not very articulate. Maybe a translator was used or something. But I doubt it. Seems like something a dumb bigot would write.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.