The one thing I'd agree with you on is that the wikipedia model is not in fact generalizable at all. It remains the n=1 sample proof point of too many arguments.
Conversation
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I think the future is knowledge being embedded in context-aware information toolchains. Tvtropes points to the future better than wikipedia, though it captures a not-quite-functional knowledge.
4
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I'm all for that kind of polycentric-narrative post-canonicity local truth ground world. I'd rather be an eager, great citizen of tvtropes than a reluctant, coerced one of the local town hall overrun by NIMBYs.
3
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
My differences with you are mainly re: whether things are good/bad (ie valuative diffs)
My differences with Nils are mainly re: how mechanisms work (ie how good/bad choice expansions and constrictions work).
Am working on a post on the latter. Content to let former be.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I’m an ideological boggart, so not WYSIWYG. When talking to statist liberals like Nils, I tend to play libertarian asshole. When talking to cryptofascist rightists, I larp SJW. When talking to SJWs, I larp freeze peacher.
You, I can’t read, which you can take as a compliment
5
