rrose

im not going to tell you you're wrong for respecting him, but i feel this comment is only telling half the story. He's very well respected in the "rationalist" community, but he and that community are pretty controversial and definitely not universally respected

homogeneous teams made up of people who think the same way, have similar backgrounds etc are more likely to have blind spots. Having a diverse set of viewpoints involved in decision making means you are less likely to overlook some corner case that is obvious to some people but not others.

It's no more coercive than any other social norm. If you act disrespectful to the people around you, they will treat you accordingly. Everyone everywhere accepts this in 99% of situations and it is interesting to see the specific exceptions they make.

what does your last point even mean? are you objecting to the idea that transphobia is bad? Nobody is suggesting not talking about transphobia. I didn't even say i agreed with censoring anything. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the stuff that does get censored is stuff that isn't adding anything meaningful to the conversation and is explicitly argued in bad faith.

it not being interesting to you doesn't mean it isn't incredibly important to them. The fact that it is incredibly important to them is obvious, and the "cognitive load" you're talking about is completely trivial. If you're not willing to take even the tiniest effort to make the people around you feel welcome, you may be the one being narcissistic.

> Take the pronouns thing

oh boy.

> Why are you putting your pronouns up?

To normalize people being open and explicit about their gender identity so that people with non-obvious gender identities can feel less conspicuous sharing theirs.

> they/them

They and them have been neutral-gender pronouns forever.

> And yet dissent and mockery of this abject stupidity is largely censored.

Because most of it is thinly veiled transphobia. You can still disagree with the censorship but to act as if it's mostly good-faith arguments being censored is just naive.

i grew up in a big city. great place to grow up. so glad my parents didn't move out to the suburbs. One size doesn't fit all

none of the post-beatles albums are as iconic as the big beatles albums, but i think at least all things must pass and ram hold up very well compared to the classic beatles albums. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you either is better than abbey road or revolver (which are two of my favorite albums ever) but they are in the neighborhood

all things must pass is weird, because if it were a double album that just elided the 3rd disc there would be basically no filler on it at all, but that last third of the album is just not up to par with the rest of it at all. I think if you're willing to ignore that disc you can make the argument that it is the best post-beatles solo album. Those other two albums are also great and definitely in the conversation

to be fair, if they really failed you wouldn't know of them

every exceptionally talented person/group is unlikely to show up in the exact circumstances that they do. In a thunderstorm, each individual tree has a very low chance of being struck by lightning, but nobody is surprised that some tree is struck by lightning.

Of course, to realize their potential they also had to work hard, and collaborating with other exceptionally talented artists also no doubt helped.

I would also push back on the idea that the music they created as a group was much better than what came after. George, in particular, released arguably his best work (all things must pass) after the breakup, and both john and paul released great albums afterward (imagine, ram)

hospitals being overrun doesn't just affect the unvaccinated, it affects anybody who needs medical attention. just allowing the hospitals to get overrun is not a reasonable option

I think the problem is that there isn't really any compelling evidence to suggest that men are more drawn to engineering because of biology. I would actually invert your last paragraph: there are so many plausible extrinsic reasons that men are more likely to go into STEM than women that it doesn't make sense to try to explain away these gender gaps as being due to some intrinsic difference.

I think it's fair to say that you can believe that the difference is biological without it being sexist. But it is also true that many people who hold this belief are sexist (in fact most misogynists probably do believe this), so people being hesitant to give a platform to people taking this angle is understandable.

it may be true that women are and always have been less interested in pursuing STEM subjects, but it is basically impossible to draw any conclusions about each sex's "strengths" from that fact.

The tech world is notoriously unwelcoming to women, tons of unconscious biases push women away from STEM, societal pressure/general atmosphere tends to encourage women to focus on things other than their career, etc. In light of all that it is hard to say whether women don't want to get into STEM because of some natural disinclination, or simply because all of these other things make STEM less desirable for them.

> People in the US are no longer allowed to question the legitimacy of their elections on most social media platforms.

> Yeah, sure you can be banned for questioning if an untransitioned man wearing a wig is really a women, but this isn't what most people are concerned about.

> the guy produced "conspiracy" content but it's really high quality stuff with no hate at all.

> I'm not coming at this from any political position.

can you hear yourself?