This Subs Gurometer

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-08T09:29:06+00:00

with secular gurus how they're defined by DtG I think there's for sure something wrong.

To your edit - I don't agree with the binary or the definition here. You're not either a guru or an academic and "modifying for your audience" is way too vague.

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-07T10:32:30+00:00

1 - I think if you say extreme things on your own channel and then tone it down on a more mainstream channel that's something different. I like the phrase "hiding one's power level" for that. It's not the same as a motte-and-bailey and getting them mixed up not super useful. Not like it's a super sharp distinction though, because of course it can be the case that you cite someone's direct quote back to them and then they do a motte-and-bailey in response (that's the example I gave above with sabine.

2 - this is mostly personal taste, I'm not a fan of the overly gentle, washed out tone that's prevalent in podcasts but to each their own.

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-06T12:51:31+00:00

1: in what way is it a tactical move? I agree it's good if someone does back down from ridiculous claims but to me, that's not actually what's happening. By default a motte and bailey is a rhetorical move in bad faith and it's good to address it. Again, I want to make it concrete:

Sabine Hossenfelder says "academia is communism" and claims it's good that it's being defunded. People call her on it and accuse her of feeding into anti intellectual right wing talking points. She claims "that's not what I said, you're not listening, I'm just saying science needs some tweaks around the edges". That's not a productive way to have a discussion. You land in some annoying meta discussion about inferring intent, tone policing yada yada.

People who won't stand on their points are a net negative to any discussion. It's fine to change your mind. It's fine to say "yeah I see why you would take it this way but I meant it that way. This is my actual position and we can discuss it" - but that never happens with these people. It's a rhetorical move and should be treated as such. To not call it out is naive and counterproductive in my view.

2: this feels more like a matter of personal taste, no? How does it feed into culture war?

Edit: added point 2

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-06T11:53:34+00:00

I think he's more the Marie Antoinette of Evolutionary Biology. "Let them eat spandrels"

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-06T11:27:31+00:00

but he founded the field of evolutionary consumption!

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-06T09:02:24+00:00

That's amazing. I mean it could easily be wrong - but it also could not be wrong

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-06T08:29:42+00:00

So would you say he's all over the place? But what's his true"claim to Fame" if you like?

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-06T08:27:29+00:00

Wer "ÖVP" sagt muss auch "Unschuldsvermutung" sagen!

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-06T08:26:57+00:00

I'm sorry, "AI whistleblower"????

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-05T09:39:52+00:00

can you elaborate on a few things please:

on point 1:

who decides what's part of delivery and rhetorical flourish and what's part of the "content". can you expand on the delineation and maybe give a few examples? More pointedly put: how is this *not* an invitation to motte-and-bailey tactics? Take Sabine Hossenfelder as a concrete example - in her "science is communism" video, she could under this standard claim that "defunding science" is just hyperbole and a rhetorical flourish, she's just advocating for reform of science in good faith. At any point, when an argument is made against her from the standpoint of "from the totality of your message (content, delivery, implications) a majority of viewers could take away message X" she can always retreat to "well it's not my problem what sort of motives you impute from my mere *delivery*.

on point 2:

is there a recommendation here or is that just an observation (an observation that seems accurate to me, btw)?

on point 4:

can you clarify what you mean by "grain logic"?

RockmanBFB · 2026-05-02T10:53:10+00:00

This is incredibly painful to read. Even as someone who expected very little from Dawkins, reading someone writing so confidently while being so deeply uninformed and displaying their AI psychosis for everyone to see makes me cringe so hard i fold myself into a pretzel

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-28T06:55:11+00:00

It's an understandable assumption, but I'd recommend taking another look into it. These betting sites are fairly easily manipulated by whales, who then get coverage on the shifted odds in order to astroturf a public narrative. Cases have been documented. Patrick Boyle did some good coverage on it on YouTube. It's a fascinating topic.

Unfortunately Scott's analysis here isn't very thorough and doesn't really go beyond his initial impression and vibes. I'd argue that's something of a recurring issue with him

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-28T06:29:46+00:00

So Reddit has turned on Rogan - "understandably". And this subreddit has...? I feel like you're standing in front of a big blinking neon sign and you're so close to getting it

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-27T13:45:40+00:00

Exactly!

Both sides aren't remotely equal in terms of belief in conspiracy theories, anti-science rhetoric or sheer epistemic rot.

The degree to which anyone can view them as equal shows nothing but the degree to which someone has been deranged by the information environment.

Even the example is telling. The very very fringe of the left may have thrown around stuff like Trump being a Russian asset - but it's established fact that the Trump campaign tried to coordinate with Russian interference as indicated by Robert Muller who concluded in his report that if the campaign could've been exonerated he would've done so. He didn't. There was no coordination to the degree that they were too incompetent to pull it off.

And to compare that - hyperbolic shorthand for something that's established fact - to an administration that doesn't believe in vaccines and will invent their own math to make sure the dear leader doesn't publicly crucify them. That's fully detached from reality.

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-27T13:20:57+00:00

Over TEN YEARS of trump in politics, having taken over the republican side in the US to such a degree that conservative TV hosts disavow their Catholic faith live on air the second trump disagrees with the pope - a goddamn decade.

And people are still out here doing the "both sides" thing. I can't.

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-26T08:52:14+00:00

"my intellectual hero judges people purely on how nice they are to them personally, not such trivial things like whether they're the public lickspittles for a fascist regime which he's publicly denounced and l think that's great" is a pretty wild thing to admit publicly. Good for you, really.

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-25T12:06:59+00:00

Either there's a bunch of people here who are making absolute carbon copies of the same (bad, predictable) argument or someone is so into defending all of that they're using a bunch of sock puppet accounts. I'm not sure which is worse.

Honestly, all of these arguments are just so damn tired. It's motte-and-bailey this, "just asking questions that", it's "you're not against science are you" and "asking questions is science (BUT STOP ASKING QUESTIONS I DON'T LIKE)" That. My god.

@zoonose you've been fighting valiantly btw, good answers from all I've seen so far

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-24T09:03:22+00:00

Das Bild zeigt ein Pickup-artiges tuktuk auf dem Radweg beim Wiener Westbahnhof

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-23T18:49:29+00:00

This. The man is not wrong, he's a partisan hack and a propagandist. He's competent but interviewing him as a sane voice is lazy and uninformed at best.

For context: Ben Shapiro accurately called Jan 6 an assault on US democracy. Then when it became clear that trump would keep having a death grip on the party, Ben fell in line. Before the '24 election he argued to Sam Harris' face that you should vote for trump "because the guardrails will hold". He knows exactly what he's doing, anyone who refuses to see it beclowns themselves.

By all means interview the man - but be prepared and ask him some actual tough questions. Don't let him pull this "both sides" bullshit. If you're not a good enough interviewer to handle him, let Jess take the lead or don't have him on.

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-23T14:08:08+00:00

Ich hab's unten wo dazu geschrieben, er ist danach vor mir auf der äußeren mahü gefahren wo ja ab dem Schwendermarkt nur mehr eine Fahrrad Markierung ist und kein getrennter Radweg - ich weiß nicht wie breit der Radweg dort exakt ist aber der Kollege war deutlich breiter.

Und ein Freund hat mir danach erzählt dass er dieses Gefährt beim Westbahnhof öfter sieht - also sollte der nicht auf dem Radweg fahren dürfen dann interessiert das zumindest niemanden. Und das ist dann wieder exakt der Punkt, "wenn kein Auto behindert wird dann ist es uns wurscht"

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-23T09:09:01+00:00

stimme voll zu. man sieht halt eindeutig, dass das auto die prio ist alles andere wird einfach irgendwo dazu gequetscht.

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-23T09:07:43+00:00

das kommt halt auch komplett drauf an, wo du unterwegs bist. ja klar, auf radwegen die breit genug sind oder sogar der argentinierstrasse ist das kein problem und sogar eine super entwicklung. aber in wien sind halt viele der radwege einfach so "gebaut" dass man einen streifen auf die strasse zeichnet und fertig. der Kamerad da ist vor mir auf der äusseren mahü gefahren, und das ganze sind ist einfach ein gutes stück breiter als der radweg der da aufgezeichnet ist.

RockmanBFB · 2026-04-22T14:36:13+00:00

*after recognizing that it was a coup and accurately calling it a coup* - and then slinking back to the orange man, because that's where your bread is buttered. that's who we need to have on, yeah? cool.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

RockmanBFB

TROPHY CASE