Yes, I realize that it could SEEM that this is what I'm saying. "Don't think of an elephant!" It's not, I promise https://twitter.com/MichaelPascal21/status/823562027847319552 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
First of all: I'm not an idiot. If I don't want you to think of an elephant, I know not to tell you "Don't think of an elephant"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Things which I think it would be wise to ignore, I don't talk about, or I only bring up privately. Pics or it didn't happen
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
But moreover, as I laid out at the end of the post: there is more to come
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Here, my focus was on showing the indeterminacy of a political coalitions's unity. It's like quantum physics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Whether structure of a coalition is unified/fractured isn't independent from observation. Factions' view of structure is part of structure!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
But as I observed in the post, many ppl will say "oh, you picked a bad example, in this one the degenerates and the muslims rly are enemies"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Nope! I picked a great example. Whether interests of two halves of PozzyMuzzy Party are tightly-aligned or not depends their view of future
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If you love models/math, try the 6 extensions, play around w/ theory. You'll get it. (But if you don't get it, you prolly don't like models)
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.