Bobson Dugnutt 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (497)

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 10:48pm

  Your point is tendentious hair-splitting, pseudointellectual posturing and fallacious reasoning.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 04:26pm

  You didn’t just leave some bit, you left out the defining context.

  The context was World War II.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 04:22pm

  That’s quite a bold statement.

  I hope you're on the economics Nobel nominating committee. I am far too modest. I give credit to Investopedia, a site dedicated to making economics concepts easy to grasp.

  Money is a liquid asset used to facilitate transactions of value. It is used as a medium of exchange between individuals and entities. It's also a store of value and a unit of account that can measure the value of other goods.

  And Wikipedia:

  Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts, such as taxes, in a particular country or socio-economic context. The primary functions which distinguish money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.

  Search engines are your friend, Beeze.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 04:16pm

  The philosophy of mathematics is rich and interesting and debunks most of the claims made in the thread. Just stop spreading bullshit and start reading up about it.

  Courtier's reply. The existence of mathematics, philosophy, or philosophy of mathematics is not in doubt. Do you require immersion in the philosophy of mathematics before you begin to count or do basic arithmetic? Then the whole world has been getting math all wrong. Is that what you wish? Customarily, math has been taught the other way around. Children are exposed to the concept of numbers by counting, then arithmetic, then fractions, decimals, irrational numbers, then more complex systems of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc. In short, the practice of mathematics is learned well before the theoretical aspects. There are many more people in the world with a familiarity with the practical aspects of math than they are the theoretical aspects of it. You advocate a gnostic posture that the people with this deeper theoretical knowledge of mathematics know what's really going on and the theory invalidates math as practiced in the world today.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 04:01pm

  Equivocating fulcrum

  It’s a basic concept: Questions are not propositions, so they cannot be true or false.

  Equivocating fulcrum. This is a lesser-known doctrine, apparently coined by Nicholas Shackel in 2005's "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology". I see what you are trying to pull. A plain reading of your statement is true; questions are not propositions. This is not in dispute. But in your raising of this issue, you seek to sow confusion in the audience and advance an observation that you hope is a profound insight. You act like there is doubt or uncertainty that only you can resolve. What you are implying: A. Questions are not true or false. B. Questions are not propositions. C. Propositions are not questions (A=B, B=A). D. If questions are not propositions, then propositions are either true or false (B and C) because they lack the mutually exclusive condition that prevents a question from possessing a truth or falsehood (A). E. Propositions can be either true or false (A, B, C and D), but because propositions must be proved, they can only be discovered through questioning. The fulcrum: Propositions are questions, because questions were used to advance the proposition. F. Because a proposition used questions to come to a conclusion of true or false (D), the nature of questions not containing a condition to allow for truth or falsity (A and B) means that propositions themselves cannot prove answers to questions (E). G. Propositions, like questions, have no truth state (fulcrum).

  If you stop the question from being asked

  But the questions were asked and answered. Repeatedly and incessantly. We're not arguing over the non-existence of questions, or what questions do we not know. We have a very long thread of questions, answers and responses. These things exist. Are 110+ posts and multiple threads in this post evidence of censorship?

  What is bullshit is you rehashing this argument when I have made this point clear to you already, without addressing it.

  I'm making you defend your words from 6-7-23 at 2:44 p.m., censorship, lying and bullshit are the same thing. Engaging with you is censorship? Engaging with you is lying? You know what, upon closer inspection, engaging with you is bullshit.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 02:28pm

  If you have 2 dollars and a two dollar bill, you have 4 dollars. But only three bills. In that case two plus two equals both 4 and 3.

  Half-correct. Numbers are values and representations of something else. We understand this intuitively. The bill is a representation of a unit of account for legal tender. The same numbers represent two very different things we are looking to measure: the face value of the legal tender, and the physical units of the legal tender itself. Face value: (2x1) + (1x2) = 4 = (1+1)+(2) Physical units: $2[1] + $1[2] = 3 = 1+2 The salient consideration of the money is its face value. We hold money for what it represents as a unit of account. The counting of the physical units of money is true in more specialized contexts, like if you're minding a mint, filling a cash register for the beginning of a business day or collecting coins from a vending machine. But, it doesn't follow that 4=3 because the numbers count fundamentally different things. One $10 bill is not less valuable than a roll of 40 quarters, they have equivalent purchasing power even though the roll of quarters has 39 more physical units of metal money than the one paper bill.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 01:51pm

  True, but basic sociology and psychology often do.

  Stop confusing tendentiousness with genius. Bobson explains your magic trick: All sociology and psychology use the same numeral and basic arithmetic systems as mathematics to build upon the more complex systems they use (e.g., statistics). What do mathematics, sociology and psychology have in common? These symbols: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 + - (X or *) ( /, the computing equivalent of the division symbol of a line with a dot on top and bottom of it) ^, have identical meanings, functions and orders. There are also Roman equivalents of these numerical values expressed in letters that are still used (i.e., I V X L C D M) and a system of math used to represent certain numbers (i.e., IV is the equivalent of the Arabic symbol 4, or "1 less than 5"; IIII would be formally incorrect but numerically correct). These are used in enumerating introductory text pages or outlines. No academic field claims a special arrangement of numbers. Psychologists don't assert, "Actually, our numerical order is 2 5 7 0 1 9 4 3 6 and our addition symbol is K and our subtraction symbol is &." Even for the higher-level mathematics used in these fields, these are only possible once the first principles of counting, order and arithmetic are settled. Psychology and sociology don't declare these fundamentals of numbers null or bullshit. (Those of a postmodernist bent do, but in a very motte-and-bailey way.)

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 01:19pm

  The burden is to prove fairness. If you actually followed the cases that followed with any level of integrity or sincerity you would know that the the legal presumption was fairness (laches, mootness and standing), which is de facto proof of a flawed election.

  Shoehorning. Shorter Beeze: The burden of proof of the accuser is evidence of the inherent unfairness of the system!

  If you actually followed the cases that followed

  Another two-fer: A courtier's reply and gaslighting. The 2020 election was the most intensively observed at every step of the process -- pre-election, the election, the vote count, the post-election litigation, the insurrection and the media coverage thereof -- in U.S. history. Since you maintain this posture of a contrarian deep thinker, you should have a modicum of self-awareness that everyone else has followed the 2020 election and its aftermath. Everyone who is not you would know if they followed the 2020 election, and don't need you to interpret our lived experiences for us. Since you chose to put these words out there for Techdirt to see, you've gaslighted us.

  you would know that the the legal presumption was fairness (laches, mootness and standing)

  But, how would you know? And If you did know this, why didn't you put on your law-talkin'-guy suit and represent Trump in court? Trump's entire legal strategy was to flood the courts with shit, hope that a sympathetic judge gives him a ruling, or hope an appeal will reach the Supreme Court so they could intervene in the election. Out of the 61 cases that were dismissed or lost by Trump's team, what would you have argued differently? Remember: The 2020 election is one where almost all of the discovery work has been done for you. You have 158 million ballots at your disposal. You can subpoena secretaries of state and local elections officials, all of whom have to attest to the accuracy of their tallies. You have a lot to work with. Even if you wish to explain the facts away, you need to make an extraordinary claim as to why the evidence before everyone's eyes and ears has to be disregarded.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 12:43pm

  Why do you assume that I didn't read Eco's Ur-Fascism from top to bottom? I didn't spam the group with the entire text of Ur-Fascism -- if you want to find it, look for the Web Archive PDF version of the essay published in the New York Review of Books (it gets past the NYRB's paywall) -- because much of it wasn't relevant to the discussion here.

  Eco is the sort of philosopher that needs to be read in full context to understand what he is saying

  Courtier's reply. "Ur-Fascism" was published in the New York Review of Books, edited to fit its audience's level of reading comprehension. If you can find any NYRB article accessible, you will have no trouble comprehending "Ur-Fascism." Eco was asked to write it in 1995, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. It begins and ends with Eco's recollections of his childhood being born into fascism and seeing it suddenly wiped away as the war concluded. The 14 points of fascism are the juiciest bits of the essay and why it is so famous. The 14 points are observational and narrative. However, fascism scholars Robert Paxton and Roger Griffin did a great job giving the 14 points a more rigorous academic definition and found Eco's points in real-world examples.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 12:24pm

  Thanks for the link

  I did click through on the link to Perla and Carifio and their critique of Frankfurt's On Bullshit. It's a very good paper. I went beyond the synopsis to their actual text, which is more nuanced than the charged words of "severely flawed" and "highly oppressive" would lead on. The intensifiers are unwarranted. Plus, it's not a takedown, but more of a "Here are the contexts of bullshit Frankfurt fails to capture, in which bullshit is a necessary and even positive element of knowledge and communication." After reading both Frankfurt and this critique, both are worthy of sitting side by side on a bookshelf.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2023 @ 12:00pm

  Beeze (6-9-23 at 8:40 a.m.):

  It would help if your analogy made sense.

  Also Beeze (6-7-23 at 2:44 p.m.):

  Not that hard, since censorship, lying and “bullshit” are the same thing.

  By your own words, if the three are the same thing, they are synonymous and can be used interchangeably. Censorship Interrogator: Did you kill your wife? Suspect: That's censorship! These answers can be either true or false depending on the evidence gathered and produced at trial. Truth (innocence) I: Did you kill your wife? S: No. Truth (confession of guilt) I: Did you kill your wife? S: Yes. Lie (factual guilt) I: Did you kill your wife? S: No. Lie (false confession) I: Did you kill your wife? S: Yes. (Context: The suspect was aware of his wife's slaying and knows the person who did it and chooses to take the fall for the killer.) Bullshit I: Did you kill your wife? S: Remember that time you guys accused OJ of killing his wife? What happened then, huh? Are these things alike? Take some other scenarios, where "That's censorship!" is a choice of action along with telling the truth, lying or bullshitting. Would you respond "That's censorship!" if: 1. Your young child asks you where babies come from? 2. Some foreign dignitaries ask you how nuclear warheads work? 3. Someone comes up to you at a party and asks you what your favorite sexual position is? 4. You are working in a public place on some computer code, another programmer happens to be there, and strikes up a conversation about your work? (Context: Think about the secrecy and security many tech companies operate by. You're a programmer and you find yourself in the social engineering predicament you were warned about during onboarding.) 5. Someone asks you to disclose your medical history? I go back to Beeze (6-7-23 at 2:44 p.m.):

  Not that hard, since censorship, lying and “bullshit” are the same thing.

  From the point of view of someone who has information that another doesn't have but seeks, you cannot utter "censorship!" to that other person and treat it the same as giving them the information they want, lying to them, or uttering bullshit.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 06:29pm

  There is a very small group of shared idea politically active protest that uses that word in regular conversation.

  For one, I am not in the group. Two, maybe just maybe that word is used in casual conversation is because they are accurately describing what their enemies are doing to them.

  But on the approach to 2+2 when you get past the 100 level of study

  Courtier's reply. The argument of the existence of deeper levels of mathematics, and the debates within it, are beside the point. The strongest arguments are also advanced by people steeped with the knowledge and training of deeper mathematics to argue that point. Very few people possess this knowledge, or know the folkways of scholars. It's not secret knowledge, but it does require rigor. However, we expect mastery of counting and simple arithmetic in childhood, because in order to understand the world 2+2=4 is fundamental and necessary to make sense of it. Simple arithmetic and integers are also sufficient for understanding the world, because it's knowledge we use in our everyday interactions, whereas the exceptions to the rule you propose only come up in specialized contexts. Deeper knowledge of math does not negate the simple arithmetic of 2+2=4.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 02:14pm

  Ur-Fascism turned up to 11

  Folks have decided what they believe… the problem is the ones who believe in nonsense and are easily angered.

  These folks are who Umberto Eco had in mind for No. 11 for the 14 defining features of fascism in his 1995 essay, "Ur-Fascism":

  11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as “Long Live Death!”). In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

  The cliche that everyone is the hero in their own story gets taken to this conclusion.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 02:05pm

  It's funny ... no, more sad and disturbing ... that Beeze feels the need to avalanche us with words for a simple yes/no question. And I never did get a response to how he would rank a list of evil things.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 02:01pm

  I am starting to remember why I stopped frequenting this site. Sad, really.

  Remember harder. Your absence is cordially invited.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 01:57pm

  Superfecta of wrong

  Not that hard, since censorship, lying and “bullshit” are the same thing.

  Beeze, you've hit the superfecta of wrong.

  1. Plain wrong
  2. Not even wrong
  3. Wronger than wrong
  4. Fractally wrong

  Can they be used interchangeably? If interrogators ask a man suspected of killing his wife, "Did you kill your wife?" the man has a motivated reason to lie. Would it make sense for the man to say: "That's censorship!" Same thing, right? Philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote a treatise drawing a marked distinction between a lie and bullshit. He says the latter is worse than the former, because in order to lie, one must have a consciousness of what the truth is in order to create a falsehood against it. A bullshitter has a completely different aim and has no regard for truth and falsehood.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 01:08pm

  Fanny by gaslight

  Rather than blockquote your last post, I can summarize the entirety of it as gaslighting.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 12:49pm

  Anatomy of a self-own

  The bailey:

  Per Wikipedia, motte and Bailey: “The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position”.

  The motte:

  My interlocuter claimed the right to call other people crazy conspiracy theorists on the basis of the claim that 2+2=4 is objectively wrong.

  The interlocuter would likely be Elfin in the June 7, 2023 post at 1:05 p.m. Interpreting your statement literally, Elfin did not claim a right. It was a metaphor or allegory involving a fictional conversation. It is open to interpretation to what Elfin meant and intended, as it was left unstated. And yes, disagreeing with 2+2=4 is objectively wrong. If humans have a shared understanding of the world, like an arrangement for counting, a system of symbols associated with units, and an ability to combine them to produce formulas, it is objective. The system of numerals and mathematical principles were here before we were born, and it's safe to say that they'll likely be here after we die. They'll have a property of permanence independent of human agency. Beeze, sensing that the motte claim was a settled understanding that was merely misinterpreted, feels it is safe to return to the bailey:

  You don’t get to call other people nutters if you continue to advance problem the most thoroughly debunked claim in probably the history of humanity.

  Your bailey is that humanity is doing counting and arithmetic all wrong and that 2+2=4 is to be understood as proof of wrongness. By rejecting the motte and bailey, you became the motte and bailey.

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 12:18pm

  Just imagine trying to run a restaurant and people stroll in naked.

  I always did wonder why the "no shirt no shoes no service" sign left off "no pants" and "no underwear". ;)

• On the post: Possible Reasons Why YouTube Has Given Up Trying To Police 2020 Election Misinfo

  

  Bobson Dugnutt ( profile ), 08 Jun, 2023 @ 12:13pm

  Beeze will claim to be a lawyer who specializes in representing sovereign citizens.

Next >>