Ah, so really, I'm not an individual when on social media, I'm part of a hive, and I have hive responsibilities. Got it. Sounds very "liberal."
-
-
Okay, well, if you want to put meat on the bones of your take here, go ahead, but I'm not going to keep firing shots in the dark until I have its outline.
-
I'm not sure what's unclear tho. I am disagreeing that we should think statistically abt guilt going on previous cases and saying that stating what is known & unknown without assuming guilt or innocence is ideal.
-
You're arguing against inductive reasoning. The presence or absence of characteristics of previous cases that make them reliable--multiple accusers, thorough reporting, corroboration, etc.--are what make a putative case more or less reliable.
-
This would seem to be a different thing tho. In that case, it is the evidence rather than the statistics that matter, isn't it? I'm lost now.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Tbh, I think we have to blame a large amount of the negative consequences of Twitter, on the mechanism of Twitter. It's not feasible to get its users to stop dogpiling, imo, without getting them to simply stop expressing opinions altogether, thus destroying the site.
-
Yes, this is the problem. Its easy to be an unwitting part of a dogpile - not jumping on a bandwagon & knowingly stoking rage & hysteria but not knowing the bandwagon exists.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.