Ian @im@mastodon.sdf.org

In a system where all speech is permissible as long as it doesn't cause emotional distress, the optimal strategy is to self-modify to experience emotional distress from any speech you don't want to permit

"If we allow anyone to vote easily then the Democrat might win" is exactly the same bad argument as "if a platform allows any opinion to be freely expressed then evil opinions might gain support" and if you draw a distinction between them then I have my doubts that you really support free elections on principle and not just as a short-term instrument

I'm too lazy to make up a story but the whole store clapped on my way out

Relying on the gambler's fallacy is also a good idea. It hasn't worked at all for a long time so it's way overdue to start working

One time I relied on anecdotal evidence and it turned out great, so I'd say doing so is a good idea

Not every instance of forgetting something is a symptom of ADHD, geez

Your viral LD tweet template:

"Part of having {a well-known learning disability} is {doing a fairly ordinary thing that most people do but don't discuss}"

Come to think of it, "People's lives are not a thought experiment" is a particularly silly sentence if you think about it for thirty seconds (though I suppose this is consistent with the thesis that you shouldn't do that). Hot dogs aren't thought experiments either.

But I guess "if you think it's fun to debate the importance and severity of systemic violence against marginalized people" kind of gives away that the author here thinks the only reason anyone debates anything is because it's fun, rather than because the subject is important and getting the right answer is important