This is what happens when you train neural networks largely on tone and its stylistic relics. They pick up formal features of arguments (not so much fallacies as tics) that have almost nothing to do with semantic content (focus on connotation over implication).
This is what happens when you let philosophers try to write about real life. This ridiculous, game-playing, feigned innocence. Journals have been full of this for years, this elaborate performance of *doing philosophy* and saying nothing. I cannot adequately express my contempt pic.twitter.com/ciDeWuEkET
— Jack (@jackeselbst) January 14, 2021
I won't let you claim the mantle of Socrates until you've earned it by besting me logically, rather than merely rhetorically. So be prepared to find out you're the one with the rubber mask, not me. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
— pete wolfendale (@deontologistics) January 13, 2021
A short thread on education as a model of how bad assumptions about the nature of information distort and eventually break social infrastructure (h/t @cstross). https://t.co/MmJVhuAwCm
— pete wolfendale (@deontologistics) January 5, 2021
Solidarity with those who need philosophical vocabulary to bring their ongoing intellectual labours and political struggles to some new level of self-consciousness, might require refusing complicity with those who carelessly sabotage its semantic substance by playing pretend.
— pete wolfendale (@deontologistics) January 4, 2021
Anyway, that's my advice, and the reasoning behind it. If you ever want more specific advice on either side of the process (synopsis/analysis), feel free to ask. Good luck!
— pete wolfendale (@deontologistics) December 27, 2020
a) Video Essays as a Philosophical Medium: https://t.co/a6epfzXYLS
b) Enlightenment and Opportunism: https://t.co/V8DJcgf9jm
I'm fielding a lot of objections to the claim articulated in this tweet (which you can read down thread), but it might be worth starting a new thread that takes a different tack, and synthesises my perspective on the video essay as a legitimate format in which to do philosophy. https://t.co/hHDD9ndUJo
— pete wolfendale (@deontologistics) December 28, 2020
More from pete wolfendale
Which human societies, past or present, come closest to your ideal of how we should live together?
— Keith Frankish (@keithfrankish) January 15, 2021
I suspect that the vast majority of the answers to the original question will fall foul of the tendency to project ideal social arrangements that reflect our own style of social understanding and engagement, and that this will lead them to talk past one another.
Consider the perspective of someone far away from you on in the neurological map, who doesn’t overlap with your socially calibrated genetic resources for social intelligence: the social heaven of an autist introvert may be the social hell of a bipolar extrovert, and vice versa.
I’ve had many good conversations about this with people in different parts of the map who overlap with me in different ways (h/t @tjohnlinward, @dynamic_proxy, @maradydd, @mojozozoe, @UnclePhobic) whose personal heavens I would like to visit, but maybe not live in full time.
We get to see glimpses of these heavens not merely in the past, but in the present, and abstract their geometries, both in spatial/architectural terms (https://t.co/aTcRgtJOVJ) and in temporal/dynamic terms (). The physical/computational platforms around us configure our agency.
More from For later read
How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.
And if the environment at the org was toxic or abusive, it is not uncommon to not realize the extent of that toxicity/abuse until after you're out. But by the time you realize that you signed under duress and presumed good faith where none existed, you're out of options.
— Lauren Thoman (@LaurenThoman) February 16, 2021
Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.
I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.
And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.
(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)