phantom_of_cato

It is, for the most part. The replication crisis supports that statement. [1] Quite a few results you may have read about in "Thinking: Fast and Slow" probably won't replicate. [2]

There are at least two factors at play: what they are studying is quite complex, and people who tend to study it aren't the smartest. Take two PhD students, one in the psychology department, and one in physics. Make them switch roles. Who do you think is going to be in more trouble? [3]

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[2]: https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow...

[3]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

> What is the point of making this comment?

The point is that if we don't resist internet censorship here in the west, for which the pressure is building up, there won't be a free internet Iranians could connect to using a VPN.

We live in a gynecocracy. Preferential policies against normal men aren't called discrimination, they have an Orwellian name of their own: affirmative action.

We all know that many public libraries carry holocaust denial books, right? It's time to do something about that. /s

The military-industrial complex [1] on full display.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

Well, it seems that the slippery slope argument wasn't a "fallacy" at all.

> As I stared up into the heavens, I had this deeply profound realization that our planet is traveling through space like all the other planets.

I genuinely don't understand what would be sad about that. The possibility of the next generation being able to explore at least one of those planets is very real.

Well, maybe he should have sponsored a loved one (or even just a random person) to go instead. Most people would probably be filled with wonder and joy.

That really sounds like a lie, they are probably just responding to the backslash.

First of all, the entire field of psychiatry is very dubious. It's nothing similar to a mature science. They aren't really doing objective evaluations. For example, very often, if you really want to take a medication, you almost certainly can find someone who'd write you a prescription for it. [1]

Also, why would someone's academic qualifications entitle them to essentially sentence a suicidal person to death?

[1]: e.g "Also, if by some chance a psychiatrist doesn’t give a patient Adderall, that patient practically always goes to another psychiatrist, and that next psychiatrist does." (https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/12/28/adderall-risks-much-mo...)

Harmful and "false" content shouldn't be censored by tech platforms either. There's no API for truth.

There's some role for courts, through libel/defamation lawsuits. And even then, the general criteria is false factual statements (not merely opinions) causing demonstrable harm _intentionally_.

Will the author be willing to dispose of all the tokens of enslavement in their possession by moving them to my bank account? I will not charge them anything for that.

> Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values.

On one hand, you are acknowledging that some values are not based on rationality, and on the other hand you think they should be imposed upon those who don't share them by censorship?

Out of all the censorship tech companies do, this is probably the least harmful.

But also:

"An expeditionary detachment of US Navy ships led by the universal amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge days ago was in the Baltic Sea

It was 30 km from the site of the alleged sabotage on the Nord Stream-1 gas pipeline and 50 km from the threads of Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline"

(from: https://twitter.com/azmilitary1/status/1574758898086694912)

Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/mZpk5

I would have a lot of sympathy with this if "banned" books meant books "banned" in one's surrounding community. Reading a book "banned" in Texas doesn't take much courage or curiosity if you live in NYC, where its ideas are just the mainstream narrative.

Throwing an ad hominem is not cool.

But that's beside the main point. You guys are essentially the "single point of failure" for half the internet. [1] Being competent and smart doesn't really help too much, as demonstrated by how you guys had to give in to the pressure to censor recently.

[1]: https://easydns.com/blog/2020/07/20/turns-out-half-the-inter...