0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by ChristianKl · 2017-02-22T21:08:32.495Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Given your own presentation of alternative facts like suggestions that posts you created drove widely exaggerated donation numbers, you are not the best person to do this advocacy.
"I successfully convinced a person from the other tribe to adopt my opinion on a subject" is a success but it doesn't show any systematic change as far as the relationship to truth is concerned.
Replies from: math↑ comment by math · 2017-02-22T22:41:09.547Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wonder if the OP is meant to be a subtle form of satire. An article ostensibly about the importance of truth in politics that appears to contain an average of one lie per sentence.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2017-02-22T22:57:53.347Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It isn't satire. It part of a larger pattern of articles of Gleb.
I didn't count an average of one lie per sentence. Care to list the lies that you saw?
Replies from: math↑ comment by math · 2017-02-23T04:07:18.757Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
DONALD TRUMP is our first post-truth president. And he may well be the first of many.
(..)
Trump’s political methods ultimately rely on the appeal to emotions, such as fear and anxiety,
Trump is by no means the first president to appeal to fear and anxiety. (Note, emotions aren't necessarily irrational, and in this case they certainly aren't).
and to personal beliefs over objective truth. Moreover, his victory was secured with blatant lies and misleading rhetoric, along with a doubling down on deceptions when called on them.
No his victory was secured by telling the truth in the face of media lies, and refusing to back down under media pressure.
Glenn Kessler’s highly reputable “Fact Checker” column in the Washington Post evaluated statements made by Trump during the campaign and assigned 64 percent of them with “Four Pinocchios” (the worst rating). By contrast, statements by other politicians get Four Pinocchios 10 to 20 percent of the time.
Glenn Kessler’s “Fact Checker” column isn't "highly reputable, in fact it has been caught multiple times engaging in manipulations ranging from intentionally misunderstanding what Trump said, e.g., taking obvious metaphors literally, to outright lying.
I could go on to further paragraphs, but you get the idea.
Replies from: gjm↑ comment by gjm · 2017-02-23T16:31:08.487Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That doesn't look like one lie per sentence.
Trump is by no means the first president to appeal to fear and anxiety.
Gleb doesn't say he was. He says (1) Trump is the first "post-truth president" and (2) one aspect of his post-truthiness is his appeal to emptions such as fear and anxiety. (You can tell it's only one aspect from, e.g., the next sentence, starting "Moreover".)
Glenn Kessler's "Fact Checker" column isn't "highly reputable", in fact it has been caught multiple times [...]
I had a look for examples of Kessler being "caught" doing bad things. The cases I found weren't terribly clear-cut and it's not clear to me from them that Kessler's column isn't "highly reputable" (note: this isn't the same as "infallible"). But I didn't spend a long time looking and you may have much better examples. Care to link to a couple of the best ones?
In any case, this is only a lie if Gleb doesn't consider Kessler's column highly reputable; and it's two sentences :-).
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not intending any defence of Gleb that's any stronger than "In this specific case, 'one lie per sentence' appears to be far from accurate".)
comment by Lumifer · 2017-02-23T01:03:48.625Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So if we can't downvote into oblivion, how do we get rid of shitposting in this place?
Replies from: DryHeap, Elo, The_Jaded_One↑ comment by The_Jaded_One · 2017-02-24T18:11:16.440Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So if we can't downvote into oblivion, how do we get rid of shitposting in this place?
What is the algorithm that currently determines the placement of discussion articles? Oh it defaults to "new". Hmm. ok.
Then when you click "Top Scoring", it defaults to "All time".
When you manually select something more sensible like this week or this month you can't see this post, and you see some interesting articles.
Maybe the problem is not that this post hasn't been downvoted enough, but that we are not setting sensible defaults? Maybe we need to make the default some kind of semi-random selection which trades off quality against newness?