you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Perhaps somebody wants to push all the non-racist people off the site?

Weak argument, designed for sympathy where none is due; last I checked, and read, most here get along. Grow up, and pick better arguments.

I could easily have said, 'i've noticed a continual parade of all the Sjw's offering advice to a new forum, which usually takes the form of, 'if you allow content like this(XYZ), then this site is doomed'....(presenting your basic premise, but from the other direction)

Yet, I've never come close to any absolute like this, and others with their own varying beliefs aren't saying this. It's the folks with the obvious PC, SJW, Libtard, MSM, and 'status quo Millennial', who're trying to paint the black, and white pictures of doom-nation for allowing 'topics', and the manner in which 'posed'.

I mean, yeah, I guess this post is a little harsh, but damn, quit using the arguments of websites like, 'lesswrong'; LMAO, it shows.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

last I checked, and read, most here get along.

Hey, I didn't say it was working! I put forward a hypothesis as to the intentions of a mysterious, unidentified figure behind the scenes… Ok, I heard it that time. Poor argument.

quit using the arguments of websites like, 'lesswrong'; LMAO

Hmm… This confuses me. Is there any particular argument from LessWrong that I've been using that is flawed? If so, I'd really like to know.

(LessWrong doesn't really have stock arguments, by the way; that's not what it's about. It's more… techniques, for identifying flawed arguments that humans regularly produce. The ultimate goal is to notice them before you make them when you're making internal decisions, and so become less wrong.)

[–]HeyImSancho 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hmm… This confuses me. Is there any particular argument from LessWrong that I've been using that is flawed? If so, I'd really like to know.

(LessWrong doesn't really have stock arguments, by the way; that's not what it's about. It's more… techniques, for identifying flawed arguments that humans regularly produce. The ultimate goal is to notice them before you make them when you're making internal decisions, and so become less wrong.)

Wizz,

Other than many people calling you a 'shill', there's nothing wrong with your arguments; except for they seemingly, and continually get you labeled as such. I can see why they do label you though, as often enough, you're arguing what most would believe the 'status quo' narrative, or perhaps, 'the establishment narrative'.

I actually find value in that, in numerous ways; yet, again, I can see where others may blurt out, whatever it maybe, so that in their minds, they possibly 'saved' someone else who might not be as savvy as they perceive themselves.

On the topic of 'identifying flawed arguments that humans regularly produce', that's just life. Usually the real decider of any argument is who can simply sway enough people to agree in mass; that is easily accomplished with money. Money rules the world; after all, it's written right on the US Greenback(world reserve currency still), "In God We Trust".

The problem I see with lesswrong, and the rest of those types of sites, they never spill the beans on the injustices, and lies revolving around the power of money. When a site like that fails to talk about the ugly side of what we call 'factual', yet claims to be dedicated to 'finding truth', you just know it's full of something stinky.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wizz has numerously called out the facts when others wouldn't. Just becaue someone posts a conspiracy article doesn't mean it is true just because it is against the status quo.

Though, he s getting carried away with trying to paint this as something intentional.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

they never spill the beans on the injustices, and lies revolving around the power of money.

The site aims to be non-political (teaching a man to fish, not giving him them) but, I can assure you, the techniques I know allow me to draw that conclusion from the evidence available to me.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The site aims to be non-political (teaching a man to fish, not giving him them) but, I can assure you, the techniques I know allow me to draw that conclusion from the evidence available to me.

That's good whizz, I'm glad to hear that you possess the ability to discern what may, or may not be correct; innovative! However, on that note, I don't know why you mention 'political', as being excluded, or included; I was saying money dictates most decisions across all boards. meh.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The writings on that site are generally about a set of techniques that apply to things other than governments, economics and politics just as easily as to those things.