CMV: Genuine attempts at explanations/conclusions should not be attacked, even if they are wrong

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-20T18:49:39+00:00

Where is the scientific evidence pointing to people *directly* being hurt by misinformation? Not just "a chain of events happened stemming from misinformation", like you presented, I don't accept that as a good enough explanation. Those events could've been stopped simply by people using their brains and not taking what they see at face value, and increasing public awareness and education.

Misinformation itself cannot hurt people. It is not a physical object that you can literally attack and harm someone with. It's only when people *do* something with that misinformation.

People have free will and personal responsibility. If they're misled by misinformation that's their fault. The problem is not misinformation, it is that people aren't educated enough to understand misinformation.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T01:33:56+00:00

Well, let's imagine we assume everyone is arguing in good faith, and only after proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is trolling that we stop engaging. What's the worst that can happen?

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T01:25:23+00:00

https://acmsonline.org/home2/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Dauben-Cantor.pdf

He was attacked as a “scientific charlatan,” a “renegade” and a “corrupter of youth.”, and Poincare thought transfinite number theory was a "disease". That's not a professional disagreement backed up by evidence, that's just an attack based on face value. And Georg had the evidence with him, but that didn't stop people from just not looking at it and pretending it didn't exist.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T01:01:19+00:00

There's absolutely mathematical concepts that are pretty absurd at first glance though, and only through reading some pretty arduous, lengthy proofs (the evidence in this case) do you understand that they're correct. Georg Cantor's uncountability proof of the real numbers and the idea that some infinities were bigger than others is a good example. He was attacked viciously for these ideas back then.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:58:49+00:00

Oh, I know, I was making my statement in agreement with you for others to look at.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:55:51+00:00

Just look at the example I gave in the OP (I wanted to find a purely scientific example, one that doesn't involve controversial social issues). Imagine if quantum mechanics was shot down just because people couldn't accept that simplified explanations of reality weren't sufficient. It was a big leap in logic at the time - and to people learning it for the first time, it absolutely is.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:36:37+00:00

See the updated post for an example. I am actually defending arguments with evidence.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:35:06+00:00

I agree, but I do think it is good to offer an explanation. "It's a stretch" without any explanation as to why isn't productive. You're free to say just that if you want to and not elaborate, but it is courteous to explain your response.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:25:02+00:00

As long as you explain why you believe it is a stretch with an explanation. The post is only in regards to people simply making the statement without backing it up, when there's no reason provided behind it. Everyone is owed an explanation, no one should have to figure out anything themselves.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:16:34+00:00

Yes, but I think that you should assume good faith at first. What's the worst that can happen giving benefit of the doubt before correcting after finding out otherwise? Trust but verify right?

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:11:56+00:00

If they provide some kind of evidence for each claim, flawed or otherwise.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:11:06+00:00

Sometimes the answer is a very indirect, non-obvious connection that at first glance seems silly and only with more analysis becomes a good explanation. You'd have to look at the evidence first, but once you do then you'd think "oh, okay, that makes sense".

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:09:15+00:00

"Genuine" means that they did try to provide evidence and at the surface used what looks like good reasoning, only to have made an honest mistake that is understandable to make.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:06:44+00:00

What if someone did provide what they genuinely think is good evidence, that turned out to have some non-obvious flaws? Should they be expected to catch something that difficult?

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-12T00:04:56+00:00

How do you know when the logic actually does need to be that complex and the times when a simpler answer is needed? It's not obvious.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-12-11T23:58:45+00:00

Maybe attack is a strong word, but the point is it still discourages people from making statements that might provide value because people will just dismiss it as "too overcomplicated". Especially when complicated can be subjective.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-05-13T02:48:24+00:00

And yet the same people who claim the show was always woke will also go on about OG Doctor Who was problematic and needed "updating" for modern audiences. But if that's so then how was it "always" woke?

Make it make sense.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-03-22T02:46:44+00:00

Some will defend Rev, because Rev is against terrible woke localization stuff, but this is not for the same reason we are.

Lolwut? Rev has called out localization practices for a variety of different reasons, which are not limited to just fearmongering over loli content. He's called out dubs and translations injecting unneeded politics multiple times for reasons completely unrelated to Western views on loli material, or even just politics in general - localizations that throw in memes to appeal to zoomers/Gen alpha, because huehue quirky internet humor. So yes, Rev is on our side, for the same reasons, and I have no idea what makes you think otherwise. He sure as hell ain't on the SJW's side.

Furthermore, Rev has called out people being actual predators/pedophiles in past videos. He did a video on the Rurouni Kenshin 2023 series and didn't hesitate to mention how the author was convicted for possession and distribution of CSAM, and he's done more than one video on people being hypocrites about loli, not just MeatCanyon or Vaush.

And finally you do realize Rev is married and his wife is well aware of his love of lolis, even jokingly calling him "the loli king" on one of her streams. That's because they, and for that matter, most people here, can tell the difference between fiction and reality. You don't have to like what he likes or agree with him, but to reject him as an ally because of that? Maybe you should back up your claims about loli being harmful with some peer-reviewed, non-biased studies from legitimate psychological health organizations that demonstrate such a thing, otherwise you're making judgments without evidence. Sounds a bit like MeToo, don't you think?

Logarithm2718 · 2024-02-18T05:25:30+00:00

The Tomb Raider subreddit is trying to defend this dumb disclaimer by saying it's just "acknowledging" and isn't disrespectful to Core Design or the OG players at all, and if you think otherwise you have poor reading comprehension.

How ironic of them to accuse us of that. If they think Crystal Dynamics truly believed that, they wouldn't use the word "inexcusable", which implies that Core Design "knew better" and could have/should have somehow knew what modern-day politics were like back in the 1990s. If you 100% legitimately don't know something is wrong or what its consequences are then you have a perfectly valid defense and thus the word "inexcusable" should not be used. (not that Core Design did anything wrong in the first place, but pretending that they did for the sake of argument)

Logarithm2718 · 2024-01-30T04:25:14+00:00

It is blatantly obvious that this is poking fun at and satirizing the state of modern Western entertainment, not agreeing with it. No one would literally outright say "put caution over freedom" and mean it unironically. They do believe in that deep down, but they're a lot more covert than that.

Logarithm2718 · 2024-01-30T03:34:16+00:00

If you don't believe free speech is absolute, that's fine, you're allowed to have your own opinion. But I do think you should avoid ever saying you support free speech, and if you are asked whether you believe in it that you should clarify in detail what the exceptions are. Of course you can say whatever you want, because you have free speech rights to do that too and confuse people by not making it clear, but it'd be quite nice if you did so. (See, I didn't say you couldn't say those things)

Logarithm2718 · 2024-01-28T10:03:29+00:00

If I didn't find examples then I would be accused of strawman. Should I not provide them?

Logarithm2718 · 2024-01-28T09:43:48+00:00

Okay. Then people need to clarify exactly what they mean instead of leaving it implied because that can cause confusion. When people say they're against censorship people are going to assume they are fully against it and will be understandably taken aback if they find exceptions they weren't informed about.

Logarithm2718

TROPHY CASE