I was going to say something about how it's ironic that Legal Eagle, big law youtuber, made a video saying "this channel is biased" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1leFwYSUHQ4) but instead of owning his bias and telling people to listen to the other side too, he framed it as like, "we're biased towards THE TRUTH"
Rewatching it again now, I don't think it's as bad as I originally thought. I think I was just hoping that he would his platform to propagate this important message, to firmly state that you should NOT trust anyone who says "trust me because I tell you the truth, unlike the other guys". It's fine to say "trust me because I'm correct. You will see that for yourself if you listen to the other guy"
I also appreciate his willingness, in a separate post, to think this way: "As I said at the beginning, I often ask myself if I am crazy—being so far out of alignment with respect to those around me. Here are my considerations and basis for diagnosis."
This gets at one of my frustrations with my "optimistic" neighbors. They hadn't taken the time to consider the arguments that eco-aware thinkers present, whereas I HAVE spent time engaging with hopium, to test my own confidence. (A third, maybe even a half of my core essays - units 2,5, 6 - are devoted to examining what ISN'T true!)
Both a TC3 course and a course at my alma mater that Jeremy and I audited earlier this year ("Is the Planet Doomed?"), assigned ONE bit of negative reading and the rest was BS. Why not let students read 50/50 and decide for themselves?
That being said, I don't think humans will be acting as lawyers, journalists or scientists by mid-century, so it's hard to feel invested in seeing them use the time that remains to improve their fields. XD
I was going to say something about how it's ironic that Legal Eagle, big law youtuber, made a video saying "this channel is biased" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1leFwYSUHQ4) but instead of owning his bias and telling people to listen to the other side too, he framed it as like, "we're biased towards THE TRUTH"
Rewatching it again now, I don't think it's as bad as I originally thought. I think I was just hoping that he would his platform to propagate this important message, to firmly state that you should NOT trust anyone who says "trust me because I tell you the truth, unlike the other guys". It's fine to say "trust me because I'm correct. You will see that for yourself if you listen to the other guy"
> If an Open Memetics Institute existed
Someday… 🥲
Your Substack is the most interesting writing that I don't know how to use in my life
This is a really interesting comment. Can you expand on what you mean by not knowing how to use it in your life?
Not sure really, I just don't know how to apply it, but I love reading it
ooh! speaking of - one of my favorite bloggers just posted an *internet argument* along with his analysis:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2025/11/space-case/
I also appreciate his willingness, in a separate post, to think this way: "As I said at the beginning, I often ask myself if I am crazy—being so far out of alignment with respect to those around me. Here are my considerations and basis for diagnosis."
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/10/evidence-please/
This gets at one of my frustrations with my "optimistic" neighbors. They hadn't taken the time to consider the arguments that eco-aware thinkers present, whereas I HAVE spent time engaging with hopium, to test my own confidence. (A third, maybe even a half of my core essays - units 2,5, 6 - are devoted to examining what ISN'T true!)
Both a TC3 course and a course at my alma mater that Jeremy and I audited earlier this year ("Is the Planet Doomed?"), assigned ONE bit of negative reading and the rest was BS. Why not let students read 50/50 and decide for themselves?
That being said, I don't think humans will be acting as lawyers, journalists or scientists by mid-century, so it's hard to feel invested in seeing them use the time that remains to improve their fields. XD