dabbernaught420

Sounds about right to me. I started using reddit about nine years ago, and I remember thinking that I had missed out on "good reddit" at the time.

Of course, it's gotten much worse still, since then.

I'm sure it's more than happy to teach you about the great game of Pot Limited Omaha

But after you're done with that, at result number 11, you get this interesting web-site: https://abbaszaki.plo.ps/

What about a student who excels in some areas but is bad at writing, or has trouble making friends, or doesn't understand much about politics and stuff that goes on in the world (you can probably tell I didn't spend much time in high school, but you get the idea)

Chemistry is something which one can get by not knowing. A lot of other stuff learned at school, not so much.

The only point I've made is that something being addictive and harmful is a reasonable quality to ban something for. This was in response to the user who said "there are plenty of reasons to ban tiktok, but this ain't it" (from memory, but close enough).

This doesn't mean that I think all things which are addictive and harmful should be banned. A total ban on alcohol would probably not be effective, and would lead to more harm than good, so I wouldn't support it.

There's already a ban on them for a large portion of the population.

He didn't say he should be the one to decide.

Anyway, there are lots of things that people can get addicted to which aren't healthy. Banning things for that reason is an option.

Works on my machine.

Your friends sound like they probably believe that admission is a privilege - it's just that they also believe they deserve and have earned that privilege.

>It doesn't matter if they grow out of it or not

Especially true considering that some of these people accused of wrongthink might actually be onto something. It's not a good idea to assume that popular views are certainly the correct ones.

I don't think universities should only be for people who share popular views.

Seventy years ago universities had very different views. If they had had an effective way of screening out students whose views they considered dangerous or harmful, then perhaps we would have a worse society than we do now.

These are powers that make me uneasy.

Think of the people behind creating wealth and think about the people who actually get wealth. You will find that the two groups differ drastically.

>Personally, a system that generally rewards competency and is based on voluntary transactions to me is trending towards System A because people who amass power in such a system and maintain it generally do so because they are good at getting results through transactions that on the whole are generally voluntary and mutually beneficial.

It's easy to imagine systems which have more freedom and are better at rewarding competency. Like anarcho-syndicalism. If freedom and the rewarding of competency are what you value, why dismiss systems such as this? Throughout history humanity has gone through several systems. I'm not sure your justifications for believing the current one is the best would hold up to scrutiny.

> Someone a lot better a doing good were not apparently good enough at getting the resources to do good.

Yes, that is pretty close to my point. We have created a system in which good people are not the people who get a lot of resources.

A person or group with immense power can trivially achieve great good.

However, if you consider systems A and B, where system A is a bit better at using immense power for good than system B, you will notice that system A will result in a lot more good than system B. Therefore, if you care even a little bit about good things happening, you will be very keen to have system A instead of system B.

The fact that someone with immense power does something good becomes a lot less reassuring when you consider the opportunity cost of not having someone or some people who are a lot better at achieving good have that immense power.

Wealth gives a person power. The people who get very wealthy (in our current system) are not generally the people who will do the best things with power. This seems like a situation which could be improved on.

I meant my comment to read like this:

[My opinion on trusting DDG] - [Reason for my opinion on trusting DDG].[More information about the reason]

In this case, because I don't use the "personal attack" to reach my conclusion that the person was wrong, I don't think it would be a case of argument ad hominem.

But if someone read it like this:

[One reason for my opinion on trusting DDG] - [Another reason for my opinion on trusting DDG].[More information about the second reason]

Then I am using the "personal attack" to reach my conclusion that the person was wrong, so I think it would be a case of argument ad hominem.

My comment wasn't written very well, and I'll try to write better comments in the future. Not that adding an ad hominem to a valid argument makes it invalid, I guess?. But it's still good to avoid fallacies, and to write one's comments so they're likely to be understood the way one meant them.

I'm talking about situations where no fallacy has actually occurred, not situations where a fallacy has occurred but a correct conclusion has been arrived at anyway.

A common fallacy I see, though I don't know if there's a name for it, is assuming that just because what someone is doing can be described by the name of a fallacy that what the person is doing is fallacious.

In my view, anyone who trusts ddg is a bit silly - founder has a bad track record on user privacy. Founded Names Database[1], a social media website designed to collect user information as aggressively as possible, before selling all the information to classmates.com.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_Database

Here's a classic article from Nick Land as to why racism isn't something worth spending too much time thinking about: http://www.xenosystems.net/hyper-racism/

The article is perhaps extreme and overly performative, but I think the central idea of "races" not surviving the near-future is a good one.

rationalwiki has a reputation for being extraordinarily bad for exploring arguments on controversial subjects. See:

http://nathancofnas.com/comments-on-my-rationalwiki-page/

and

https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/some-comments-on-the-rationalwi...

Frequently found are lies, deliberate misrepresentation, mocking, bullying.

Why not just use Firefox?

Just make sure your handle isn't tied to your real name.

There's a lot of stuff, language for example, that's mostly genetic. Humans aren't learning these things from scratch, generally they're just filling in some blanks and helping guide the development of the brain.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

>10 years seems like a short amount of time to have found the treasure

Yes, that seems like a good reason to doubt the claim.

FAANG talking down on other FAANG seems funny.

>I'm sure some clueless Linux Desktop evangelist will try to claim otherwise

ubuntu just werks

dislike this guy's comedy it's like he thought very hard about how to be a popular comedian and not so much about how to be funny

Wasn't my experience taking courses in political science and political philosophy. Was exposed to a lot more viewpoints discussing with working class family, reading literature myself (reading primary sources and focused secondary sources was actually often strongly discouraged by my professors as an inefficient use of time, something that would of course change doing post-grad work, but that isn't what we're discussing here), etc.

To the extent that viewpoints not part of the accepted doctrine are presented, they are presented poorly and without passion.

At worst they can be used to restrict and exclude minority groups and to reinforce existing hierarchies (which are often unjustified).