It just seems strange to ask a *bunch* of questions publically and then try to move actual discussion into a private channel. I am much happier to discuss what I consider a poor frame proposed in public... in public
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason
Okay! So, do you have a crisp and clear definition of IDW that you like?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner
Nope -- for the same reason don't I have a clear definition of "happy people," "good thinkers," or even "my friends." (All of these are actually fuzzier.) I have crisp definitions for groups certified by top-down organizations, and I don't think those rule the day.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
So, is it "I know it when I see it" or are people only IDW if they voluntarily self-identify as such?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EvanSandhoefner
You'll see some variability in the way people apply the label -- just as you do for e.g. "rationalists" and "effective altruists." I tend to think of both a little differently depending on context
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @EvanSandhoefner
No, I find "cringe-inducing" cringe-inducing. It's the idiotic terms mean girls use when they're tired of calling people they don't like "creepy"
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @EvanSandhoefner
I like to think my argument has a little more content than "but doesn't this make you cringe?" But OK. I'll never claim to not be an asshole, just one with a fucking point
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.