shaming on basis of beliefs seems like the kind of tactic you employ only if you don't actually have a compelling competing narrative I think? hmmmmmm maybe its more complicated
-
-
's fun tho
-
also a signal that 'these beliefs are terminally stupid and only dolts hold them or advocate for them' is heck of worth sending
-
ehhhhh I dont think so thats the opposite of the value norm I prefer which is "were big vats of meat that eke out some thoughts sometimes so keep that in mind when evaluating the fervency of yr beliefs"
-
not dissimilar to a mindset I've long had (which I arrive at via a cognitive linguistics frame), which has a name I just learned earlier: Ironist (Rorty-type, if there are competing definitions). or at least my mindset rhymes with Ironism a fair bit, and perhaps yours as well
-
regardless of what we call it, it's really just being bayesian about your priors, where in this case the priors are morpheme-lexeme mappings and how sure we are that our maps are (1) accurate and precise, and (2) shared by our current conversation partners
-
therefore this is nonsense, only a dolt holds read-only priorshttps://twitter.com/palecur/status/996157683941036034 …
-
i'll have you know my priors are exclusively write-only
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.