Bad take. While a lot of people are parroting the trope that liberals want the talks to go badly wrong, there’s no evidence of a single person who thinks that way. Think about what it would mean that the talks “go badly wrong”. We get incinerated.
-
-
Replying to @svenosaurus
How does any of that make it a bad take? I'd say it makes it an extremely good take!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
At best, it’s a test with zero power. But also, mentioning it propagates a bullshit meme.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus
Well, I've not seen the meme, and anyway don't care it propagates it. And secondly, it's not a test with zero power. It's absolutely explicitly (see the way the second choice is phrased) a test with only very small amount of power. Third, you're taking it way too seriously!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
First, I used the word “meme” in its original (Dawkins) meaning, so “I’ve not seen the meme” doesn’t make sense in response to it. The meme here is the idea that liberals want Trump to fail in everything, including diplomacy and peace talks. 1/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus @PhilosophyExp
Second, it literally is a test with zero power if we agree on what I said previously (to which you at least agreed arguendo, as you responded “how does that make it...”). It has zero probability of rejecting H0 (non-tribal) if H1 (tribal) is true. 2/
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus @PhilosophyExp
Third, I’m taking it seriously because it contributes to bothsideism, which is extremely pernicious while we are facing a real danger of losing democratic institutions. 3/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @svenosaurus
We've had this conversation before. It's an entirely reasonable view that "left lunacy" makes losing democratic institutions more likely. For example, well there are endless examples, but 18 years of Thatcherite rule, Michael Foot & longest suicide note in history...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp @svenosaurus
Or the polarization engendered by nationalist conflicts. Perfectly reasonable to suppose that though both sides are not equally bad, you're not going to get rid of the worse side before the less bad side reforms. That was absolutely certainly the case in the UK in the 1980s.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
BTW I gave a talk 2 weeks ago about the danger of erosion of values and quality of arguments on the liberal side as a consequence of conservatives becoming extreme. So I agree with you on the conceptual level; I just think you picked a bad specific case.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Cool. It was just a stupid tweet! 

You don't think I actually thought there were loads of liberals out there hoping for nuclear armageddon? (I think liberals are probably conflicted about Trump's role in this.)
-
-
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
Why would liberals be conflicted about Trump’s role? He is a failure as usual and expected. What is there to be conflicted about?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.