851–860 of 939 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is from 2011, but today on Spotify Eminem still has more monthly listeners than Kanye West (53M vs 51M). Eminem also has several songs that have over a billion streams (one with >1.5b), while Kanye has just one and it's at exactly 1b. So yes, Eminem is still well ahead.
Kanye had tons of collabs as a producer and a huge influence on hip-hop artists to follow. It's not just about streams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't aware "many prominent people don't like fact-checking" was a statement that needed a citation. In any case, you're free to disagree with that. I don't really care enough to try to prove it to you.
According to a Pew Research poll "do fact checkers favor tend to favor one political side" It's split down the middle https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/27/republicans... As to prominent people- What do you consider prominent, would most people agree with that, and do you have a poll of these people. Saying most prominent people blah blah blah is debatable on two levels
I have no idea what you're arguing. Your own link says what I said.
I'm not saying anything about the fact-checking itself. I'm not on Twitter or Facebook. I haven't seen any fact-check posts. I'm sure they try their best to be accurate. I prefer to get my information about the most hoax-prone topics from authoritative sources - primary sources, news agencies, newspapers of record - the more boring, the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a really concerning trend on HN and elsewhere I'm seeing. Everyone now seems to think free speech is too dangerous to try and promote anymore. What are you thoughts on free speech regarding misinformation or election denial? When so many republican candidates reject the result of 2020, what's the right answer? Allow them to continue to divide the country up until half of the populace no longer trusts the de…
I think mandated information disclosure is extremely important in a capitalist system. How can we make good decisions if we don't have good information? We need to ask more questions, trust, but verify. We do pass laws that require those that sell products and services to disclose X, Y and Z for their products in a standardized and uniform manner. Likewise, we should be skeptical and critical about what others are te…
It’s incredible what they report. Everything is charged against democrats, and everything is a conspiracy. Of course, left leaning news sites demonize republicans in the same way, but it tends to be less extreme.
I think that in general censorship is wrong, but I just see so few options. I think the state of the US is more worrying than issues like climate change. Hopefully someone can fix it without war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Courting conservatives. Equating all conservatives with radial groups is not helpful and only further sows division.
Turning a blind eye to how prevalent radical ideology permeates the conservative base is also not helpful. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll... But you missed my point--by galvanizing the conservative base that is racist, homophobic, sexist, and anti-semetic, it leaves the rest of conservative party with an impossible choice--support a democratic candidate, or vote party line. That is how K…
I didn’t really care about your point about Kanye, I can more about people sowing division.
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
I used to be free speech absolutist, but I am not any longer, especially when it comes to social media. The argument in favor of absolute free speech for me was basically “let everyone hear everything and make up their own mind”. This presumes that people are swayed by the content of an argument. This is a false assumption, people are mostly swayed by the volume of the argument. This is well documented in psychologic…
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
I used to be free speech absolutist, but I am not any longer, especially when it comes to social media. The argument in favor of absolute free speech for me was basically “let everyone hear everything and make up their own mind”. This presumes that people are swayed by the content of an argument. This is a false assumption, people are mostly swayed by the volume of the argument. This is well documented in psychologic…
Controls on speech get perverted far worse and far faster, every single time. There is no perfect system where we can make everyone infinitely wise.
Musk and everyone else is right that we do need a platform with free speech. The only problem is that all those free speech advocates are actually NIMBY's when it comes to free speech. I have been following self proclaimed free speech absolutists(because I too, believe in free speech but don't believe it exists) and they are totally not the kind of people that say "I hate what you say but I will die defending your ri…
Absolute free speech and anonymity is a toxic combination. Free speech in the way it was envisaged in the constitution presumes there is a feedback loop back to the emitter of the speech. Anonymity breaks that feedback loop. Anyone who tells you that free speech without consequences has ever existed pretty much anywhere is lying to themselves and to you. If you want anonymity you need some measure of bounds on speech…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about we just go back to not using one big central social communication platform and go back to the spirit of using separate independently owned forums, chatrooms and websites for our little niches and communities to prevent this issue.
How does this prevent the issue? You can say horrible things on smaller forums as well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you apply this same stict framework to your medical diagnoses you are handing out for people you've never met over the internet? I don't need to catalogue the fallacies to point out why this is not a good idea. This is also ironically vague and there is literally no ad hominem in there. Word salad is critique of the quality of the discourse, not of the person making it. Also fallacy fallacy, just for good measure
>> that gives the impression of a deep understanding of the human psyche when in reality it shows at best the ability to memorize the criteria around a few invented categories and give a horoscope based off of them. This is ad hominem. You are ignoring what is said and making a personal attack. That is what ad hominem is, ignoring the argument and attacking the man. > Do you apply this... This is ad hominem. > I don'…
Here's an example of real ad-hominem: "You are an obnoxious narcissistic piece of shit that thinks every disagreement is a personal insult because you can't stand not being right". If someone was to use that sentence in an argument, that would be ad-hominem.
Asking whether or not you apply same standards of not using logical fallacies (from your original comment, I personally doubt it) is not ad-hominem because it's calling you out on asymmetric standards - apparently, you're free to commit logical fallacies as much as you want, but the moment someone else does, you halt all discussion and just shout "fallacy!" without any further elaboration and expect the other person to do the legwork of analysing how and why is the argument fallacious and fix it. That's not good faith discussion.