Readit News logoReadit News
jayspell commented on Consumer prices rose 8.5% in March – highest since 1981   cnbc.com/2022/04/12/consu... · Posted by u/arbuge
UncleOxidant · 3 years ago
> inability to take control of the situation by WhiteHouse.

I see this sentiment a lot here, but it's really unclear what the WhiteHouse can do about it. Maybe they should take Gerald Ford's lead and start printing up "Whip Inflation Now!" buttons? Maybe you want a wage and price freeze à la Richard Nixon? The Federal Reserve is where your ire should be aimed. They left rates way too low for way too long kicking the can down the road and now the next kick of the can could reveal it to be a bomb. The way to deal with inflation is the way Paul Volcker dealt with it in 1980: raise interest rates significantly - not these piddly 1/4% raises.

jayspell · 3 years ago
What they could have done is not cancel the Keystone pipeline. Enact common sense energy policy instead of pushing all their chips into green technology, a key component of which is battery based and whose supply chain is heavily linked to Russia.
jayspell commented on The endgames of bad faith communication   consilienceproject.org/en... · Posted by u/Thersites
deadpannini · 3 years ago
> if the goal is persuasion then good-faith arguments don't scale.

This is true, but only in a very narrow, specific sense. Arguments don't persuade on their own, they scale with the credibility of the speaker. Speakers gain credibility and respect by:

- Giving good advice.

- Showing good judgement and making accurate predictions.

- Demonstrating that they understand various audience. constituencies, with bonus points for demonstrating that they actually care about these constituencies.

Conversely, there are numerous ways for speakers to destroy that credibility, like a history of making deceptive statements.

For most people, this means good-faith argumentation doesn't scale because they don't have the standing to make people take them seriously. But it isn't a rule of good-faith arguments as such: arguments are just constrained by social factors and by people's finely-tuned heuristics for who's worth taking seriously.

I suspect this is the main reason people are frustrated by internet debates, to the point of wanting to give up on them and just start censoring people. I make what I think is a careful, reasoned case, and in response all I hear is crickets, or trolls, or "lol lol lol lmao lol lol lol". This is because, to almost everyone reading Twitter, Hacker News, Substack, or the NYT comments, I'm just a rando.

It takes time to build respect and credibility, so keep at the good faith discussion, give people a reason to read what you're writing, and keep your relative obscurity in perspective on the way up.

jayspell · 3 years ago
I agree with you to a point, but it's not my experience that speakers gain credibility and respect by giving good advice / showing good judgement / making accurate predictions. This would be true in traditional discourse, but not online. Online it feels as if speakers gain an audience by demonstrating their world view as loudly and as viciously as possible. It's like a group of children where one has learned that the way to get attention is to scream louder and longer than the others. I also have this feeling that social media is ruled by those who are willing to spend their time and effort to elevate a particular point of view no matter how unpopular it is.
jayspell commented on Split the States (2021)   github.com/norvig/pytudes... · Posted by u/tosh
jayspell · 4 years ago
Is this just an exercise?
jayspell commented on Russia bans coupon payments to foreigners holding ruble bonds   reuters.com/markets/europ... · Posted by u/bitcharmer
nine_zeros · 4 years ago
I just don't get it. What's stopping a hundred truckers to blockade Kremlin, with the help of opposition parties?
jayspell · 4 years ago
That didn't work in Canada, a supposedly liberal democracy. Trudeau enacted emergency powers and seized peoples bank accounts, what do you imagine Putin would do?
jayspell commented on Edward Snowden Says 'Media Pushing for War'   commondreams.org/news/202... · Posted by u/good8675309
jayspell · 4 years ago
I have a hard time understanding why NATO keeps expanding despite the fact that the threat it was created to guard against collapsed 30+ years ago. I find the Russian demand that NATO not expand to Ukraine fairly reasonable given the history they have with NATO. I look at this as similar to the US declaration that missiles in Cuba were not acceptable back in the 1960's.
jayspell commented on Reasons to Abandon Spotify That Have Nothing to Do with Joe Rogan   newyorker.com/culture/cul... · Posted by u/Nrbelex
say_it_as_it_is · 4 years ago
I abandoned The New Yorker a while ago. The entire magazine is one big woke circle jerk. These are people who get high off of smelling their own farts. The bias is everywhere in the magazine. Their long-form investigative work hasn't produced something interesting in some time. They must have lost their talented writers and editors in a woke war.

So, I don't really care what someone from the New Yorker has to say about Joe Rogan, as they join the cancel crusade.

If anything, I may sign up for Spotify for standing up against cancel culture, and I won't be subscribing to the New Yorker at time soon.

jayspell · 4 years ago
I signed up for Spotify specifically to support Rogan.
jayspell commented on Joe Rogan Apologizes, Spotify Publishes Content Policy in Response to Neil Young   wsj.com/articles/spotify-... · Posted by u/throwawaysea
jayspell · 4 years ago
Can you highlight some of the BS?
jayspell · 4 years ago
Not a troll, appreciate you taking the time to respond. Believe the thread is too deep to respond directly to you. Another question if you have the time - what makes you trust one source over another? For instance when the WHO and CDC don't agree what makes you trust one source over the other?
jayspell commented on Joe Rogan Apologizes, Spotify Publishes Content Policy in Response to Neil Young   wsj.com/articles/spotify-... · Posted by u/throwawaysea
dekhn · 4 years ago
"The two guests sound very reasonable". Do you mean Malone? https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-ma... sums it up; he's made numerous statements that are almost certainly false.

"the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation.

Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.

jayspell · 4 years ago
Can you highlight some of the BS?
jayspell commented on Joe Rogan Apologizes, Spotify Publishes Content Policy in Response to Neil Young   wsj.com/articles/spotify-... · Posted by u/throwawaysea
dekhn · 4 years ago
From what I can tell (I don't watch Rogan, so I get a lot of this indirectly through articles) at least some of the experts on the show make claims and then cite work that has been retracted, or is trivially verifiable as pseudoscience, or just not convincing/supporting. But it's presented uncritically as such and the viewers really have no way to make a reasoned decision one way or the other.
jayspell · 4 years ago
If you watch the episodes that are controversial the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada (I don't know them verbatim but this is what I remember - been a month or so). I would make the claim that if you actually watch these episodes the two guests sound very reasonable and have no citations that are "crackpot" in nature. Getting information indirectly is a big problem. He talks to people for three hours, how do you condense this to a five minute read? Before dismissing actually take a look. Watch the episode and see if anything they say sounds unreasonable.
jayspell commented on Joe Rogan Apologizes, Spotify Publishes Content Policy in Response to Neil Young   wsj.com/articles/spotify-... · Posted by u/throwawaysea
shepardrtc · 4 years ago
> alternative views

I think you mean crackpot views.

> carefully curated information which is incomplete

Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information. Nonsense like Joe Rogan has no verification - instead it has him Googling the subject for a few hours while doing a lot of drugs. To wit, here is a call of his where he discusses the now-debunked bondo ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E. During the call, an expert phones in and he ridicules her without even listening to anything she has to say.

jayspell · 4 years ago
When you say crackpot you are referring to a highly published cardiologist and an epidemiologist whose work is used in the vaccine. In the world today actually being expert enough to work on teams that create a vaccine does not give you the status to hold a differing opinion without being labeled a "crackpot".

u/jayspell

KarmaCake day62May 28, 2020View Original