Sam Altman on Tucker Carlson [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
How do you know the opinions are honest? That strikes me as not easily assessable. What does it mean that an opinion is transparent?
His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.”
And
"I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-endorses-donald-...
He was sending these texts while publicly repeating the standard Fox News lines about how great Trump is, etc.
How can you ever consider him honest, after this?
What lead you to believe you can take two people like Tucker Carlson and MTG who are PRIMARILY known for spouting bullshit and you can somehow magically decipher the signal from the noise? Is it just the topic of Israel that you agree with them on? What are you actually comparing them against? I’d love to know more about what you’re describing looks like in practice because it sounds very handwavy at the moment and maybe it would be a better discussion with concrete details.
Likewise consider the opposite. Until recently I really respected Buttigieg, but when asked about Israel he cannot answer the question. He hopelessly looks for a moderate safe way out and it looks really incompetent.
It’s not a trick question… I really want to understand what lead you to think that you can take known bullshitters and somehow seperate the fact from fiction. It’s just really confusing I think to me and others in this thread how on earth you arrived at the positions you did?
You seem to be quite focused on the idea that Israel is committing genocide which isn’t a controversial statement for a lot of people but I don’t understand why you hold up Tucker Carlson over the ICC who have much more credibility on the topic and came to the same conclusion. Why MTG and not AOC for example if you mean outspoken politicians specifically? The thinking patterns just seem incredibly strange and I wanted to know what you’re actually thinking here.
Apparently also either an inability or unwillingness to explain these alternate premises.
This comment hits the nail on the head: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45211312
You do not seem to be engaging in liberal discourse, but propaganda instead.
"You can't play chess with a pidgeon. It will overturn all the pieces, shit on board and will be happy that he won". Scary thing is that a lot of people will root for that pidgeon ("Yeah, that pidgeon showed the master who's the boss!").
The premises were explained before the questioning even started:
> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.
The entire point was that the claim
> privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.
has no bearing on the assessment of honesty. It does not matter what Carlson's private beliefs or public opinions are. Facts are facts no matter who believes, disbelieves, claims to believe or claims to disbelieve them.
Whether numbers are factual can be objectively assessed. The truth of the numbers does not depend on who cites them. The eyewitness accounts cited objectively exist. What eyewitnesses claim to have happened is a matter of record, and it doesn't matter who cites those claims. That Carlson was "speaking in reference to" those accounts is objectively verifiable by cross-referencing what he says with what the eyewitness said.
The bit about Carlson's private tweets is irrelevant, and a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy.
Determining whether a claim is true does not depend on who made the claim. It takes no additional skill to make this determination if the source is generally unreliable, except in the case where the claimant is being used as an authority (so as to determine the legitimacy of that authority in context). But this isn't such a case. That's the point.
I said I was laughing at you, not that you offended me. Those two things are worlds apart and the fact that you mixed them up once again is the precise reason why people are laughing at you here. The lack of self awareness is a spectacle at this point.
While you are laughing I continue to think you don’t know what this conversation was ever about. Laughing at your own invented strawman is a form of self soothing masturbation. Again, this isn’t a competition, except possibly only in your own mind.
GP objectively did not make any such claim, and nothing about GP's words indicates such a belief. You are clearly not discussing in good faith; throughout the above thread you have repeatedly ignored very clear arguments, presented wrong understandings of very clear ideas, and wrongly attributed beliefs to the other party; all apparently in the service of judging what "side" others are on rather than engaging with their actual claims.
> do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector?
> you can somehow magically decipher
It is abundantly clear that you are, in fact, trying to be rude.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You were originally responding to:
> To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.
Nothing about this requires extraordinary skill or "magic". Determining whether what Tucker Carlson said is true, works exactly the same way as determining whether what anyone else said is true.
Wait a minute, you were already faced with the fact that the likes of Tucker Carlson defend positions in public that they personally criticize and attack in less public settings.
And yet, even after being faced with that information, you still opt to ignore it and whitewash Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson as being this paragon of objectivity?
I'm starting to wonder what you are trying to do with this thread.
You should cut the act. Playing dumb doesn't help your case.
I am only stating my opinion. It’s not a competition. I don’t owe you anything. It’s okay to disagree.
Or put differently: "they have the same world view as I have?"
But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like.
That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.
I think it means "I am a sucker with no critical thinking skills and fell for their propaganda".
The attempts to whitewash and normalize Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson also give pause. It's hard to believe someone can be this gullible, specially after being presented with facts and still doubling down on whitewashing the character.
So I'm curious. How do you know the numbers are factual and they eye witnesses are what they say they are?
In 2018, MTG suggested that the CA fires were a result of The Rothchilds sending laser beams to earth and missing their intended target.
It comes down to the fact that he is a normie. He sees people dying and he instinctively speaks against it. It is similar with economical and other political talking points.