cuz even alluding to it makes texans uncomfortable. doth protest too much i think

Who said anything about scolding anyone lol. I responded very calmly.

I'm sorry, but you'll never win me over that the world be a better place if only we could bring back overtly prejudiced speech.

Actions have consequences. You can say whatever the hell you want, but doesn't mean you deserve respect, or not to be corrected, or not to face the consequences of saying overtly bigoted words.

The fact is... calling negative things gay implies being gay is bad, and therefore we should stop calling negative things gay if we want to support all the good people in the LGBTQ community.

Sure, use whatever derogatory or offensive words you want, I don't really mind, but I am damn sure going to judge you based on it.

I don't tend to be the "don't use that word" type of person though. But I'm absolutely the "get the fuck out of this 'will make me dumber' conversation" type of person.

I think about this quote from Ricky Gervais a lot. He's had more than a few controversies, which you may or may not agree with but I think his take here is apt.

"Please stop saying 'You can't joke about anything anymore'. You can. You can joke about whatever the fuck you like. And some people won't like it and they will tell you they don't like it. And then it's up to you whether you give a fuck or not. And so on. It's a good system."

Is telling people that they can't tell other people which words they use a form of language policing?

(In a thread concerning Plato, I thought this question needed to be asked.)

in particular the big trade cities like Venezia had been pulling out anything and everything as the ottomans closed in; had been going on for a while before Constantinople fell.

but broadly speaking, yeah the collapse of the Byzantines and their stores of classical history is what drove the rediscovery and later the Renaissance

Not to be dismissive, just "providing" another perspective while I take a walk to think about that:

In the other bidirection..

If Steve and Ive grokked each others' Jobs..

(You could complete the couplet but I may or may not recommend it)

Edit: Atticus would have been more convincing (to me) if he was more ex-Confederate officer and less Mary Sue

Ps2: deprogramming (ie something that could be applied to Scott Locklin.. I have read his Optiksy takes while thinking about his quasiracist ones.. & tentatively conclude that the Buxton [e: dissonance] angle^W ansatz is in the realm of.. plausibility)

Ps3: there's the Peenemuende slave Labor museum^W monument. Compare German (P/Tin Drum) and Japanese (??? sporadic priests^W Buddhist chaplains I guess) tatemae?

"L": https://archive.ph/dtf2U

Ps4: maybe one could leave it up to American initiative/dynamism* to uncover more of these living [prep]aradoxes.. I highly doubt it could scale (even after defocusing from ORs)

*https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46000060

I studied Attic, Koine, and Homeric, as well as a few other dialects for 10 years through college until I left my PhD program in Classics. Learning Greek was _very_ hard and even after that time I still had many gaps.

There's certainly a lot to be said about the manifold interpretations of Platonic Idealism; what I'm saying is that when we've historically introduced new philosophy students to things like Jowett's translations ("But tell me, Zeno, do you not further think that there is an idea of likeness in itself, and another idea of unlikeness, which is the opposite of likeness, and that in these two, you and I and all other things to which we apply the term many, participate-things which participate in likeness become in that degree and manner like; and so far as they participate in unlikeness become in that degree unlike, or both like and unlike in the degree in which they participate in both?"), there's also a grammatical issue. Yes, I can deconstruct that and reassemble it in more colloquial terms. The problem is that for a lot of students, they don't develop interest enough to engage in the deconstruction until after they've gone through the arduous process of reading that and thinking "WTF?!"

I don’t see Paul acting like every opinion is equally valid when it directly affects something he cares about. He seems to happily participate in “useless” political discussions when he has a strong opinion.

Well, even Republicans accepted that an insurrection was a bad thing:

> There is nothing patriotic about what is occurring on Capitol Hill. This is 3rd world style anti-American anarchy.

* https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1346909901478522880

* https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/marco-rubio-2021-tweets-...

Are insurrections, now five years later, a good thing?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...

I read Graham’s point as narrower than “there’s nothing to learn.” He explicitly says: “There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers.”

The warning label is about identity capture. Once a view becomes part of who you are, the odds of real updating drop: “people can never have a fruitful argument about something that’s part of their identity.” Or, put positively: “you can have a fruitful discussion … so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.”

So the issue isn’t the topic. It’s what happens when belief turns into a kind of badge.

Ellison basically said, repeatedly, that we need AI to keep the poors in line and prevent "bad behavior"

Project 2025 never says it loudly but its unambiguous in those aims

This is kind of bad faith.

> They developed a great deal of formal logic... it seems more like they were mostly slathering on the tech debt. How am I mistaken?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abelard/

> Abelard was the greatest logician since Antiquity: he devised a purely truth-functional propositional logic, recognizing the distinction between force and content we associate with Frege, and worked out a complete theory of entailment as it functions in argument (which we now take as the theory of logical consequence). His logical system is flawed in its handling of topical inference, but that should not prevent our recognition of Abelard’s achievements.

and you might be more familiar with Ockham's Razor. There are others, but you can do your own research if you're interested. There was a lot of work that needed to be done in between Aristotle's incomplete Syllogisms and the incomplete understanding of propositional logic that Sophists used, that helped birth Frege's Begriffsschrift.

In the case of the Black Death, an appropriate characterization of it did not gain currency until well after the heyday of the Enlightenment.

This has little bearing on the argument I was making, but I'd like to note that religion had a great incentive to teach abstract notions to the laity (and they did) as the Christian God and its dogma are extremely abstract in contrast to most agrarian notions.

PS. Hook'em Horns :)