That's a pretty circuitous tale to express why people shouldn't continue to update their priors about a complex story as it unfolds.
It is an absurd expectation that people should take verbal cues to form "common knowledge" to be settled immediately and without update. Your thoughts here seem to treat people like sheep. I think there are …
That's a pretty circuitous tale to express why people shouldn't continue to update their priors about a complex story as it unfolds.
It is an absurd expectation that people should take verbal cues to form "common knowledge" to be settled immediately and without update. Your thoughts here seem to treat people like sheep. I think there are more of them who are not who can resteer the herd.
One way or another, there is a ticking clock, and we know where the bomb is. The smoking gun isn't all that important while we're working to defuse the bomb.
At the risk of splitting hairs, my explanation of the psychology that is compelling people to overlook your analysis is not an endorsement or justification of that way of thinking. I agree with you that people should be able to update their priors and integrate your analysis, but the fact remains that they aren’t yet on the whole doing so. Even prominent, capable thinkers in the movement are still running with the original Renz disclosure. I don’t get why you’re taking issue with my explanation. What I’m expressing here is pretty basic (albeit unfortunate) human psychology, especially amongst people who have been grieved and traumatized by the tyrannical nightmare to which we have all been subjected. I guess I’m just surprised at your lack of understanding of it. What is so difficult to understand? People so wanted the original DMED whistleblower story to be true that they are having a hard time admitting that it isn’t the slam dunk they thought it was, even if you are instead presenting us with a drawn foul and two made free throws. Slam dunks make the highlight reel, even if made free throws down the stretch will win the game.
"the fact remains that they aren’t yet on the whole doing so"
All we need is for a few leaders and lawyers to do so. We're not talking about reversing all of mass psychosis here.
"that it isn’t the slam dunk they thought it was, even if you are instead presenting us with a drawn foul and two made free throws."
1. It's an identifiable database.
2. It's used by the CDC.
3. It's a matter of national security.
4. The changes are irrefutable.
5. This could open the door to finding out if unlawful orders were issued to the military. If that is the case, those orders need not be followed, and this could lead to the removal of a top level general or even the sitting president.
This is a dunk over Michael Jordan. What is your goal, here?
Jarrod’s explanation makes sense to me. We’re in a world where massive data manipulation is the norm. Funny numbers and bullshit is the norm. Not caring that your argument is built on funny numbers and bullshit is the norm. We have a bigger problem than one fake data set.
That's a pretty circuitous tale to express why people shouldn't continue to update their priors about a complex story as it unfolds.
It is an absurd expectation that people should take verbal cues to form "common knowledge" to be settled immediately and without update. Your thoughts here seem to treat people like sheep. I think there are more of them who are not who can resteer the herd.
One way or another, there is a ticking clock, and we know where the bomb is. The smoking gun isn't all that important while we're working to defuse the bomb.
At the risk of splitting hairs, my explanation of the psychology that is compelling people to overlook your analysis is not an endorsement or justification of that way of thinking. I agree with you that people should be able to update their priors and integrate your analysis, but the fact remains that they aren’t yet on the whole doing so. Even prominent, capable thinkers in the movement are still running with the original Renz disclosure. I don’t get why you’re taking issue with my explanation. What I’m expressing here is pretty basic (albeit unfortunate) human psychology, especially amongst people who have been grieved and traumatized by the tyrannical nightmare to which we have all been subjected. I guess I’m just surprised at your lack of understanding of it. What is so difficult to understand? People so wanted the original DMED whistleblower story to be true that they are having a hard time admitting that it isn’t the slam dunk they thought it was, even if you are instead presenting us with a drawn foul and two made free throws. Slam dunks make the highlight reel, even if made free throws down the stretch will win the game.
"the fact remains that they aren’t yet on the whole doing so"
All we need is for a few leaders and lawyers to do so. We're not talking about reversing all of mass psychosis here.
"that it isn’t the slam dunk they thought it was, even if you are instead presenting us with a drawn foul and two made free throws."
1. It's an identifiable database.
2. It's used by the CDC.
3. It's a matter of national security.
4. The changes are irrefutable.
5. This could open the door to finding out if unlawful orders were issued to the military. If that is the case, those orders need not be followed, and this could lead to the removal of a top level general or even the sitting president.
This is a dunk over Michael Jordan. What is your goal, here?
Jarrod’s explanation makes sense to me. We’re in a world where massive data manipulation is the norm. Funny numbers and bullshit is the norm. Not caring that your argument is built on funny numbers and bullshit is the norm. We have a bigger problem than one fake data set.
Maybe because your explanations and writing style are arcane as fuck. Just a thought.