these are great results because my hot take is that the correct answer is option 2. you at least have the option of trying to shape your own team's discourse to be less bullshit; requiring outgroup claims to all be false forces you into a reactive stance you aren't in control of
-
-
Show this thread
-
this means you can be trivially made to demand that your team treat clearly true statements as false or at least unsayable, which is the position that progressivism increasingly finds itself in, especially since the alt-right picked up provoking it as a fun pastime
Show this thread -
and of course anybody who answered option 4 is either a contrarian shitposter or an admirably unabashed cordyceps host, so it's nice to have numbers on those in my followers even if disambiguating them is problematic
Show this thread -
fwiw, a lot of people seem to be processing this whole set of ideas as if Our Team and Their Team were generally or even often making directly inverse truth claims about the same topics — Our Team is asserting A and Their Team is asserting !A — which is catastrophically wrong
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Phone in for ‘reflexive pseudo-impartiality’
-
ah yes, the ever and increasingly popular "since truly disinterested objectivity is impossible, understanding the universe through demanding that whatever propositions support one's ideology be true is just as good as making an honest attempt to not start with one's conclusions"
-
Closer to ‘actually we have a pretty robust epistemic handle on a lot of important concepts, but I’m going to bad-faith pretend there is always at least some merit on both sides of the argument’
-
yeah that's fair, pretending that controversy existing means everybody has some kind of supportable position doesn't help anything
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
oh wait I voted for the one I thought was most rad not the most bad, I’ve tainted the sample
-
welp, guess this iteration of the universe is a wash then, time to shut it down and start over
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
they're the same thing
-
see downthread for how i don't think so at all
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Like Sophie's amulet, they are the same side.
-
see downthread for how i think they're actually very different
-
Sure, you break out of them in different ways, but while you're in them, they're not very.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"is Eris true?" "Everything is true." "even false things?" "Even false things are true." "how can that be?" "I don't know man, I didn't do it."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
voted option 1 since never questioning your own assumptions will quickly lead to complete stagnation
-
Agree. If your side leaves any room for doubt, then there can be doubt that the other side is 100% false. If you're def right, all is lost.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Unequally destructive
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Something something Eris, something something "to the most truest propaganda".
Thanks. 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.