adibabidan

1 of 2 official #2 aidans on here

~
gameposer extraordinaire
avid learner, begrudged college student
21, any pronouns
~
i do: music composition/production, writing, game design, the rest of the fucking indie game
~
i like: digifu, anything animated, narrative indie games, youtube videos that teach me how to do things i, myself, will never actually sit down and do
~
breakneck film class broke my neck but at least i know what a chip chart is now
~
music tag
wip tag
ohb tag
~


links/commissions
adibabidan.omg.lol/

belarius
@belarius
🕹️ I'm Using Tilt Controls

🌁 Image Format Discourse

🐾 Feature Of Being A Creature

🐽 Post Hog

🤐 I Have Silenced This Post

🦷 Vampire Marshmallow

🗻 Is Only Carbon Now

🛃 What Are You, A Cop?

🚰 Sink Dog

🎨 Artist On Cohost

🧛 Bourgeois Argument

☢️ CSS Crime

🏠 In This House We

🤺 Your Argument Is Floppy

💱 Mutual Aid

🕳️ Post Hole

🤸 Obtuse (Affectionate)

👐 Jazz Hands

💣 Politics By Other Means

🤖 Simulated Simulacrum

🌡️ I've Been Reduced To 50% HP

⛎ A Secret 13th Thing

🔣 Symbol In Place Of Argument

:eggbug-classic: Eggbug Lore


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @atomicthumbs's post:

Getting iced out of the lesswrong community when i realize that everyone just puts the "I'll respond later" react on my posts and doesn't actually respond later

edit: i honestly think the thing with Lesswrong is that they want human interactions to be wholly devoid of uncertainty and implications, thus making those interactions computable... in that regard i respect their efforts here but i think the detailed reacts are going to be used for memes, jokes, implication, passive-aggressive behavior, etc. in defiance of its intent

i write fanfiction with more nuanced double meanings than they seem to think capable for a human in any conversation. words don't just mean one thing!!! sometimes i very much intend for them to mean more than one!!!!

often people arguing about whether or not "X is Y" is true are operating on different definitions of Y, and so 'forcing' the argument to continue without the word Y can be productive

somewhat similar principle as the Zhuang Zhou quote:

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

i think rationalists are generally silly but "one ought to consider arguments as logical statements" and "human psychology inhibits this, so one ought to propose arguments in a way that will not lead to them being dismissed out of hand" are not incompatible statements, any more than "i want to be able to do 100 pushups" and "i should stop doing pushups when my arms hurt" are

they aren't, but is it really possible to avoid hurting a rationalist's feelings? and that's rather what this boils down to: if a "rationalist" can simply duck away from any uncomfortable argument with an excuse like "unnecessarily combative" (i.e. "made me feel bad") then is argument even possible?

people not listening to arguments that sufficiently hurt their feelings is kind of a universal property of the human cognitive architecture. if i wrote that initial response full of swears and insults, you probably wouldn't want to continue the argument!

I love the dual impulse of "we'll use a scarecrow icon for strawman arguments" and "we can't just put 'strawman argument' here, we have to describe what that is".

But then! I would've thought "additional questions" meant "I have additional questions", but with an elephant next to it, I'm leaning towards "that doesn't answer the question, it just raises additional questions" with the reference being to "it's elephants all the way down".