The Coronavirus Thread

[Hermit]

That's bogus. There's no need to steelman someone else's position (demonstrate an ability to argue their point on their terms) if one is willing to address it charitably and in good faith.

I still don't know what you disagree with, with them. That's one reason to steelman their position.

Or you could just continue to not listen to them, while insisting something about them is wrong. That's cool too.

About five years ago I attempted to steelman geocentrism and failed utterly. Does that mean I don't understand the geocentric argument very well?

[pErvinalia]

What the fuck is "steelman"?

[JimC]

What the fuck is "steelman"?

I too am ignorant of this latest piece of internet jargon...

[Cunt]

What the fuck is "steelman"?

It's a technique used by Weinstein. Kind of makes it clear you haven't heard him, so for short, it is the opposite of a strawman argument.

For example, if you disagreed with JimC on buttons, you could state his side so clearly, he would be glad to agree with your phrasing. If you did that, then stated your position on buttons, I would think you understood him very well before presenting your side.

[Hermit]

What the fuck is "steelman"?

I too am ignorant of this latest piece of internet jargon...

It's another crappy assertion by our member from Yellowknife. To wit:

If someone can't steelman an argument, they don't understand it very well.

I told him that about five years ago I attempted to steelman geocentrism and failed utterly. Then I asked him (twice) if that means I don't understand the geocentric argument very well. He may have realised that I caught him out spouting rubbish again and remained silent on both occasions.

[Joe]

What the fuck is "steelman"?

It's a technique used by Weinstein. Kind of makes it clear you haven't heard him, so for short, it is the opposite of a strawman argument.

For example, if you disagreed with JimC on buttons, you could state his side so clearly, he would be glad to agree with your phrasing. If you did that, then stated your position on buttons, I would think you understood him very well before presenting your side.

It just sounds like arguing in good faith as opposed to misrepresenting someone's argument to make it appear weaker. Catchy name though.

As for Weinstein and Heying, I haven't heard their podcast, but did catch their appearance on Maher's show. Is that representative of their views?

Here's the segment.

[Brian Peacock]

That's bogus. There's no need to steelman someone else's position (demonstrate an ability to argue their point on their terms) if one is willing to address it charitably and in good faith.

I still don't know what you disagree with, with them. That's one reason to steelman their position.

Or you could just continue to not listen to them, while insisting something about them is wrong. That's cool too.

Your presuming I disagree with something-or-other because I haven't steelmanned whatever it is you think is agreeable - but which you also admitted you don't understand. I'm calling bullshit on that I'm afraid. If you think someone has a good point about something then represent it and we can have a chat about it. Your whole schtik here is to place conditions on others that you avoid placing on yourself. If you don't think that's correct then perhaps you should try to steelman my point-of-view.

OK, you don't disagree.

I contend that I like their podcast, and enjoy their view.

Your point of view? I think it is that I should provide proof that I enjoy their view on things.

Or maybe you would like to listen to them, and discuss one of their views which you find interesting...

You haven't noticed that you brought this entire thing about how others shouldn,'t find something disagreeable in that podcast - but they would anyway. You could have just said, "I liked this podcast. They talked about X and Y. Wasn't sure about X but Y seems about right." But instead you started, without saying anything about the thing, with how we wouldn't like it, or would find it disagreeable, and that if we were people with a right to a point of view we'd either already know everything about whatever it is that's supposed to be important here, or we'd prove our worthiness by showing we were prepared to overturn our own views about whatever it is we're supposed to take a view on. So what do you think you were actually trying to do here - particularly when you yourself don't want to talk about the thing you want everybody else to pay attention to?

There's no need to answer that btw. I just think sometimes it doesn't hurt to reflect that kind of thing back to you.

[Cunt]

You haven't noticed that you brought this entire thing about how others shouldn,'t find something disagreeable in that podcast - but they would anyway. You could have just said, "I liked this podcast. They talked about X and Y. Wasn't sure about X but Y seems about right." But instead you started, without saying anything about the thing, with how we wouldn't like it, or would find it disagreeable, and that if we were people with a right to a point of view we'd either already know everything about whatever it is that's supposed to be important here, or we'd prove our worthiness by showing we were prepared to overturn our own views about whatever it is we're supposed to take a view on. So what do you think you were actually trying to do here - particularly when you yourself don't want to talk about the thing you want everybody else to pay attention to?

There's no need to answer that btw. I just think sometimes it doesn't hurt to reflect that kind of thing back to you.

I guess I was trying to express that, no matter how good their points are, they are from the wrong side of the tracks, so many people would not be able to say their ideas were good.

Heying has expressed a biology-informed opinion that runs counter to current political movements by trans-activists. I wouldn't agree (or disagree) about those points here, but the subject itself makes her a hate figure to some. With cancel culture being what it is, if she is a hate figure, you can't agree with her publicly. Hate-adjacent is the new McCarthyism.

Even though nothing I've heard her say runs against biology, and is informed by an interesting history of interaction with biology, trans people AND activists of many kinds.

I have heard people disagree with her, but not with much depth or understanding. Maybe she has been interviewed by a more informed trans activist, and I missed it.

[Sean Hayden]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of Public Affairs

DHS Statement on Equal Access to COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccine Distribution Sites

DHS and its Federal government partners fully support equal access to the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine distribution sites for undocumented immigrants. It is a moral and public health imperative to ensure that all individuals residing in the United States have access to the vaccine. DHS encourages all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to receive the COVID-19 vaccine once eligible under local distribution guidelines.

...

...U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection will not conduct enforcement operations at or near vaccine distribution sites or clinics. Consistent with ICE’s long-standing sensitive locations policy, ICE does not and will not carry out enforcement operations at or near health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors' offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances.

DHS is committed to ensuring that every individual who needs a vaccine can get one, regardless of their immigration status.

https://content.govdelivery.com/account ... ns/2be2f78

[JimC]

Vaccinating Mexican rapists will lead to the extinction of the white race! Take up arms!

[pErvinalia]

Proof Democrats want open borders!

[JimC]

Proof Democrats want open borders!

And that they want brown people to steal our vital bodily fluids!

[Cunt]

[Joe]

What the fuck is "steelman"?

It's a technique used by Weinstein. Kind of makes it clear you haven't heard him, so for short, it is the opposite of a strawman argument.

For example, if you disagreed with JimC on buttons, you could state his side so clearly, he would be glad to agree with your phrasing. If you did that, then stated your position on buttons, I would think you understood him very well before presenting your side.

It just sounds like arguing in good faith as opposed to misrepresenting someone's argument to make it appear weaker. Catchy name though.

As for Weinstein and Heying, I haven't heard their podcast, but did catch their appearance on Maher's show. Is that representative of their views?

Here's the segment.

So Cunt, are you going to answer my question, or is a 9 minute video to much to ask you to watch?

[Hermit]

So Cunt, are you going to answer my question, or is a 9 minute video to much to ask you to watch?

Lol. Our member from Yellowknife is not into answering questions. There is a stack of questions I asked that he has yet to reply to, which he probably won't because he's too busy JAQing off.