Why, though? Dom hasn’t been shy about dropping big bans on people. Why should you or I assume he’s doing some weird, circuitous method like this with you in particular?
I think the difficulty is in that it’s not clearly wrong. You could never ever use this as a “red pill the normies”type of thing. If I wasn’t already sold on what kind of evil Google is, I’d probably go “yeah, so?”
But, already being sold on Google being evil, I do have to roll my eyes and laugh a little that their “totally organic AI” came up with the following examples:
- Grr, those evil Nazis!
- Grr, those evil Nazis (a little more obliquely).
- OMG SCHOOL SHOOTINGS!
- Grr, those evil American settlers!
- Grr, those evil Nazis!
I’m going to second everything u/vicious_snek6 said, but I’ll also add that even if you say “Sweden should have much more aggressively protected nursing homes… somehow…” which I don’t agree with, that still doesn’t rise to the level of “pulling a Cuomo,” which would have required them to actively force covid patients into nursing homes in order to intentionally infect the elderly and inflate the death rate.
He wasn't rich.
Hey, that’s an interesting past tense. How about 14 years later, after he switched to political commentary and started to get a much, much larger audience? Do you think maybe his financial status might have changed?
In what way did they fail, though?
And what policies were those? I didn’t think Sweden locked down much at all. Are you saying they should have?
You're right. I understand my error now. Thanks for explaining.
No, actually both explanations you’ve given are wrong as I understand it. Here’s the solution as I know it:
When you picked, you had a 1/3 chance to pick “right.” Since probabilities sum to 1, that means there is a 2/3 chance that the prize is behind a door you did not pick. One of those doors is then eliminated and you are shown that door did not contain the prize. It doesn’t matter whether that door was eliminated at random or purposefully—what matters is that you know the prize was not behind that door, and that out of the selection categories remaining, [door you originally picked, 1/3rd chance of having a prize] and [all doors you did not pick, 2/3rd chance of having a prize] you get to repick your category. If it helps, you may think of repicking as opening every door in the latter category, since that’s effectively what will happen.
If you switch, you have a 2/3rd chance of hitting the right door, because that’s the necessary inverse of your original 1/3rd chance, now that the other possibility of a dud door has been removed.
Okay, man.
Anyway, here's the actual question:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
I bolded the parts where it explicitly says it works the way I told you it works.
Yeah, but the assumption is that there is a right door. You're changing the fundamental rules of the problem and saying "guys, when you say the whole thing works differently, it works differently!" That's true, but it's not exactly insightful or useful.
Yeah, but—and I say this having read the comments and knowing people aren't getting it—shouldn't you assume that, unless you're a moron? You thought they set up a game show so there was a chance they reveal the big prize and then stand there sheepishly going "so... uh.. do you want to pick a new door, or...?" Why would that ever be part of the design?
Also, as u/Kienan pointed out, even if it was random, you'd still switch.
Don’t be silly. Guys like him don’t go to the movie theater to watch movies. They go for a conversation with their friends.
Wait, really? He made X-Men 3 and then got another shot at it?
Does he really know? Consequential bodies?
His name is Dildoman9000 and he does similar bits in c/gaming where he says something stupid, then takes the opposite position (stupidly) and calls everyone idiots. I don’t think it’s concern trolling, I think it’s just regular trolling. I’m surprised people haven’t learned to ignore him by now.
Shortly after the election, I saw one twitter post from some moderately-large lib account blaming Kamala's loss on a "global wave of anti-incumbentism," as though such a thing could be a cause and not a symptom. As though it just randomly materializes out of the ether. "Yeah, this was just a tough year for incumbents. What do you mean 'why'? I don't know, I'm pretty sure everyone just randomly decided they hate whomever happens to be in office in their area for no particular reason."
You mean the rate that streamers get paid for ads?
“Wheel of Time has never gotten an adaptation,” I say with my eyes shut and my hands over my ears….
Not that you’re wrong—and of course having the executable is what’s relevant when it comes to purchases you’re making now—but I’m also worried about GoG’s future long term. They are owned by CDPR, and we all know how that company is going….
Even if Jones isn’t super correct all of the time, I think he’s hated because he’s like controlled opposition, without being controlled. Just like Ben Shapiro or the “Intellectual Dark Web” or whatever yahoos you want to name, Jones is, in his own way, approachable for certain kinds of people. Except he’s not approachable because he’s a carefully curated sandbox of normie-right positions, but because he’s a larger than life living meme. People can watch him without agreeing just to see what he’ll say next. He’s a different sort of on-ramp into right-leaning thought, and unlike certain other gatekeepers, even though he does have his blindspots and foolishness, he’s not too concerned with deliberately guiding his viewers into normie-brand conservatism. Any blind spots he has are probably genuine, rather than malicious, and that in itself is dangerous for the powers that be.
(I have seen people call Jones a CIA asset because of his blindspots, but I think that’s far fetched.)
Nothing “sleeper” about her. Even if she’d kept her mouth shut, it would have been reasonable to see “Hollywood celebrity” + “some shade of brown” + “current year” and guess that that all adds up to “anti-white.” You’d be correct more than 90% of the time. The whole line some people had about how the stars of these brownwashing projects should get some sympathy because they’re just taking the jobs that are available was always hilarious cope.
“Whataboutism,” as I understand it—and it’s difficult because I think people use it retardedly more often than they use it well—is theoretically accusing someone of deflecting. You’re saying that they can’t argue on the merits, so they tried to switch the topic to something that may look relevant but isn’t. If Vance had brought up an AG from 50 years ago, it might be valid to say “whataboutism,” because of course that AG isn’t necessarily connected to today. If Vance had brought up a single disgraced DA, it might be valid to say “whataboutism” because there’s a difference in the level of the office.
But Vance brought up the guy who is in the exact same role, now, appointed by the same party that is screeching about hypothetical abuses, who has committed, for real, exactly the kind of abuse of power they claim Gaetz might commit. It’s about as relevant as one can get, because it explicitly points out that Gaetz will be replacing someone corrupt and it implicitly highlights the hypocrisy, credibility, and general corruption issues these people have in a way that is directly connected to the role in question.
(Note that even in my initial examples, it wouldn’t always be whataboutism… if Vance could bring up a corrupt AG from 50 years ago and then connect his protege(s) and influence to the Dem leadership/AG of today, or if he had a list of a bunch of corrupt DAs that were all Dems, you could use that to build an argument that actually, the Dem AGs are way more likely to be corrupt).
Edit: ultimately, I think plenty of stupid whataboutism claims are made in bad faith, but I think some are also made by people who can’t perform second order reasoning. Here, if you’re capable of thinking through Vsnce’s statement, you end up at “the people who told me Gaetz is corrupt are actually corrupt themselves. I probably can’t trust them to tell me who’s corrupt.” But if you can’t get to that second part, then even if you don’t knee-jerk disbelieve Vance’s claim, you end up with him saying “I’m not saying Gaetz isn’t corrupt, but their guy is also corrupt.” Which is a very different message, and arguably it becomes reasonable to say that he’s engaging in some whataboutism.
And it should be noted that Amy Coney Barret and Kavanagh have certainly been less than perfect, and my understanding was that Mitch had at least some advising role in making those selections. I believe he’s the one who provided Trump’s shortlist in the first place. “If you have a Supreme Court majority…” yeah, maybe. But those vacancies were going to happen with or without Mitch, and with someone more based in his role we may have in fact gotten better appointees. It’s impossible to know, but it’s definitely not cut and dried enough to overlook all his glaring flaws.
That’s obviously weird and fucked up sounding, but from a purely intellectual perspective it does make me curious about the target audience. What factors make them have both a rape fantasy and a revenge/power fantasy at the same time? I’d kind of expect to see one but not the other.
Well, I don’t know about your growing list, but if you’re going through kotakuinaction2.win, you’re using an older system that’s slightly out of sync with the scored.co domains. That’s why you can’t see someone’s off-KiA2 comments and posts if you click their username, for example, until you go to a scored.co part of the forum. And KiA2 has had other issues that don’t affect the rest of scored, like that recent bug viewing inboxes. So the idea that it might have some connection problem that you aren’t seeing elsewhere isn’t surprising to me.