Writing about culture, philosophy, politics, and how people think. Formerly made house music as Wave Point.
Joined July 2020
- Tweets2.3K
- Following363
- Followers1.5K
- Likes13.5K
Wave Point retweeted
A lot of philosophy can justly be reduced to: ”I have invented a question which puts me in a bind because I am a massive autist. This question must thus be incredibly important for mankind.”
Calling things “x-phobic” seems like a rhetorical trick to me. It borrows credibility from a medical diagnosis and suggests someone is afraid of something when they might just dislike it. I’m not defending prejudice or saying it’s okay to dislike people for who they are. Just saying it feels like there’s a judgment built into the word before the conversation even starts.
Scott Jennings is the obvious pick for press secretary. He’s the only person besides Leavitt with both the rhetorical skills and the complete absence of shame required to publicly dickride whatever line he’s handed. If he’s not hired, it’s probably because someone in the room said, “But secretary is a woman’s job.”
He won’t. Admitting he was wrong and apologizing would go against everything modern conservatism rewards.
I want to know when @nicksortor will issue a public apology for lying about @jamestalarico?
Religion teaches people from an early age that beliefs can be accepted without convincing evidence and are worth defending anyway. I wonder how much that shapes the epistemic standards they later bring to politics and other areas of their life.
Jesus should’ve waited until we could livestream the resurrection. Two thousand years of arguing when we could’ve just said “skip to 43:12, that’s when he comes back.”
Wave Point retweeted
oh ok so just because the center confirms you've never received treatment from them and you've never even been to ohio, that somehow means you've never received treatment from this treatment center in ohio???
Seeing people say the right “fell for” the Talarico hospitalization story makes me wonder if that’s even what’s happening. Sometimes it looks more like: “Here’s the story we’re all telling now. It helps our side. Use all 12 of your brain cells and every social media account you own to defend it.”
This won't change any of their opinions btw. This actually proves to them the conspiracy is even deeper. If people are sued for defamation and are found liable, that will be the ultimate proof that this really happened and is being covered up. Nothing can change their minds.
Trump renaming AI to “SI” for “super intelligence” is legitimately what I imagine the limit of his engagement with most topics looks like.
Someone spends 20 minutes explaining how AI could transform the economy, reshape warfare, and change civilization. Meanwhile, in his head: “I don’t like the name. Artificial sounds fake. Super intelligence sounds much better. I wonder why nobody thought of that before me.”
They leave the meeting wondering how much he actually understood. He spends the rest of the day telling people he named it and saying the companies will “police themselves”.
Wave Point retweeted
the dynamic of lib/left political discourse seems rly simple to encapsulate:
- the leftist takes a "morally virtuous" but non-pragmatic position
- liberal says it's a dumb bc it won't happen and there's a better approach to reduce harm
- leftist takes this dispute as the liberal being morally opposed to the initial position
- conversation is reframed as the liberal person is anti-'good thing'
like that's literally the entire discourse now, and once you see it you can't unsee it
The concept of humans having a “soul” seems to be a rhetorical invention. It gives human life a sense of special depth, but it’s rarely clear what it actually refers to or how it explains anything.
It works as an intuition pump: say “a person has a soul,” and the idea feels meaningful and the person seems to deserve moral consideration before we’ve established what “soul” means.
How we judge people depends a lot on what we think drives them. A deterministic atheist might see someone’s behavior as the result of their upbringing, biology, and circumstances. A Christian who believes in free will might put more weight on a choice they could have made differently.
That can lead to different views on punishment: the determinist might ask whether it changes behavior or protects others, while the Christian might also think someone deserves punishment for what they chose.
We’re watching the same thing happen and telling different stories about what caused it. That shapes what we think should happen next.
Debating someone whose entire identity or career depends on a belief shows you how inventive the mind gets when it has something to protect.
They have a powerful incentive to misunderstand any point that threatens that belief. Admitting one point means opening a door they need to keep shut.
None of this requires dishonesty. It can happen even when you’re trying to be fair.
Anybody play Ghost of Yōtei? I have a hard time finding PS5 games that keep my attention. This is the first game since ARC Raiders that I’ve wanted to play a lot.
Anybody else playing? Add me on PS5 and let’s play online. What other games should I try?
Most of the time, “well, by your logic…” is followed by something that isn’t your logic at all. It’s an argument they invented and then congratulated themselves for defeating.