@othercriteria hahahaha what
-
-
Replying to @ctbeiser
@ctbeiser@literalbanana hmm that's the opposite of my read- here offense comes from including group, and in mine comes from excluding1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian@literalbanana it is the exact opposite; I invoke a different moral foundation. But the language is…decidedly non-neutral.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ctbeiser
@ctbeiser@literalbanana I would claim that it is decidedly non-neutral on the idea that these should be considered the same problem...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian@literalbanana I think we've started talking past eachother.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ctbeiser
@ctbeiser@The_Lagrangian@literalbanana Dude's at MIT. We could all enter a room and resolve this with either Aumann or fisticuffs.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @othercriteria
@othercriteria@ctbeiser@literalbanana ooo ooo can we make a rationalist version of chess boxing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @The_Lagrangian
@The_Lagrangian@othercriteria@ctbeiser chess boxing is extremely rational1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @literalbanana
@The_Lagrangian@othercriteria@ctbeiser chess boxing is eating the slug2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @literalbanana
@literalbanana@The_Lagrangian@ctbeiser Are duels dares? Are dares duels? Will this be another status/prestige?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@othercriteria I think duels are dares with two dare-takers, where the dare-offeror commits himself should it be accepted
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.