I'm curious whether /r/Catholicism will survive on Reddit, given that Catholic dogma on homosexuality and related matters conflicts with burgeoning progressive notions of (un)acceptable speech. Reddit's "Anti-Evil Operations" is in play... reddit.com/r/Catholicism/…
(contextual side note: I'm not Catholic, but I deeply respect Catholicism both in theory and practice, even when I diverge from it)
(another side note: can you believe that Reddit actually calls its censorship team "Anti-Evil Operations"? y'know, people cite 1984 so often because Orwell's satire is near-astonishingly on-the-nose. in a sense we have Stalin to thank for that...)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
particularly excited that @gnostiquette remixed previous contributions by @strnglft and @Polyducks — that's exactly the magic that Wanderverse is *for* 😍
I think it's tragically under-acknowledged that your epistemological approach *ought* to be different depending on your goal(s)
in other words, what you *should* identify as truth, versus discard as false negative or false positive, depends on the endeavor that you're pursuing
for example, I don't think that atheists are *wrong* per se, but they've foregrounded a salience framework — a paradigm of what is most important, epistemically — that I disagree with and consider misguided. this is because we have different priorities re: how to order world-data
this is nigh-impossible to discuss, the friction and gaps between different totalizing models, because the models and their adherents tend to get mad if you acknowledge that "snapshots" from a rival reality-capture can be valid, can depict things that are "real" and worth seeing
this is a large reason why I don't talk about object-level politics very often
I know that I can't outsource my judgment, and I'm usually not willing to do a five-hour deep dive on the primary evidence concerning whatever the controversy is
people use shortcuts to evaluate informational validity, and it just straight-up doesn't work fam
they linked a bunch of sources? cool, awesome, but you're trusting them to have understood those sources
try a little "science journalism" and you'll see how this fails
it's more performant to believe — or at least say — that you never incur collateral damage in pursuit of your righteous cause. so people do! the falsity doesn't negate the advantage
if there's an advantage to belief X or rhetoric Y, the truth value will be treated as irrelevant instrumentally — but all the while paid lip service with apparently earnest fury
I suspect that "social epistemology" or whatever you wanna call it is the default, and it's v. weird and aberrant to internalize the scientific method, or, like, *reasoning* for its own sake. we hacked through this by proceduralizing Science™ as a high-status thing
"propriety for me but not for thee" ain't gonna fly anymore 😏
Lorenz: "The whole idea that the very ethical and talented women who write these stories (who she basically demeans) do so for 'clicks' is misguided and wrong."
3) OTOH, I do believe that you're a sincere useful idiot
what is she, a child? is there some rule that the nerds can't hit back? y'all better figure out quick that those "rules" don't apply when you no longer gatekeep prestige
poetically tragic that Kelsey Piper took a job at Vox to popularize effective altruism and completely squandered the opportunity to be, y'know, an *effective* altruist
lel — "What it felt like from the inside was that the implications of my beliefs were too ridiculous for me to feel comfortable committing them to public scrutiny." archive.is/dLd1i