Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
[strike]mIcHaEl[/strike] mIcHeLle dId iT
To be fair, not sure what the difference is between "there's a lot of shady stuff going on" and at least implying the real possibility of a conspiracy.
just saying that there's obviously some things left unsaid in the media coverage
in 99% of situations it's out of respect for the dead - not wanting to highlight his poor decision making which led to his death - but i can see how it opens up the doors for conspiracy theories
again, not once have i said anything conspiracy related - just saying that there's a lot of shady stuff going on
Explain to me how not saying the guy was drunk/on drugs or naming the identity of the witness is “shady stuff”. I’m not tracking. By your own theory you think it’s an accident, and they said it was an accident. If the guy was on drugs or drunk is that shady to not reveal it?
Explain to me how not saying the guy was drunk/on drugs or naming the identity of the witness is “shady stuff”. I’m not tracking. By your own theory you think it’s an accident, and they said it was an accident. If the guy was on drugs or drunk is that shady to not reveal it?
you misunderstand, i'm just explaining why it gains obvious "there's pieces to the puzzle missing" commentary
a man who doesn't swim drowning in a 3' average depth pond while paddleboarding at night is definitely up there as a big combination of things you wouldn't expect
this reminds me of neil haywood, someone who was found dead of alcohol poisoning and despite his friends and family saying that is truly bizarre for him since he's a teetotaler was ignored as a "well you can never quite tell now can you" and then years later, oh no, he was indeed murdered by a powerful family - so there is precedent for this kind of stuff - so again, leaving out the details that make this make sense "he went out paddleboarding after a long day of drinking" will always attract conspiracy theorists trying to figure out why a man would be paddleboarding at that hour, let alone how he could drown in a pond with an average depth of 3' of water
frankly, i would need to be in a k-hole and even then, i doubt it'd be possible for me to drown in that situation
I hold people coming to debate politics on niche message boards to a higher standard than the average individual. What the folk conclusion might be on any issue is really of little concern to me. When people ask me to listen to their political point of view, I’m going to have a much higher standard than with a random conspiritard coworker.
Victor and Dunyain should both be able to suss out that murder is much less likely than the null hypothesis I sketched out above, which you yourself would affirm. So we may just be talking about two different epistemic standards.
I hold people coming to debate politics on niche message boards to a higher standard than the average individual. What the folk conclusion might be on any issue is really of little concern to me. When people ask me to listen to their political point of view, I’m going to have a much higher standard than with a random conspiritard coworker.Victor and Dunyain should both be able
I'm curious-- do you think it happens that people do get killed and have it made to look like an accident and that you get local police and coroners involved in coverups in America? It doesn't have to be this case but is that happening within the realm of possibilities for you?
Because you could say about every single death: "whatever the coroner says that's likely the way it is". And that's both true and also not very insightful.
I'm curious-- do you think it happens that people do get killed and have it made to look like an accident and that you get local police and coroners involved in coverups in America? It doesn't have to be this case but is that happening within the realm of possibilities for you?
Yes. The discussion is about the most likely possibility, not logical possibility. For instance, if I have aces the most likely possibility is that I win, but it is possible to lose against any hand.
Because you could say about every single death: "whatever the coroner says that's likely the way it is". And that's both true and also not very insightful.
You’re not tracking the conversation at all. I proposed it as the null hypothesis, and there are others claiming that the alternative hypothesis is more likely. This is like the stupidest objection someone could have.
Victor and Dunyain should both be able to suss out that murder is much less likely than the null hypothesis
I dont think I said that I thought it was murder. maybe I did. I dunno. go ahead and find the quotes.
Just stop what you’re doing for a second and look at a calendar for February 2026. It’s perfect…
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Because you could say about every single death: "whatever the coroner says that's likely the way it is". And that's both true and also not very insightful.
Kelhus doesn't believe the bolded is true in this case.
-Well, I am guessing the coroners report is true. But no one is allowed to see it. And the information we were given (no violence) is probably also true, but there is assuredly something they aren't telling us. With that most likely being drugs involved.
Again. My point isn't really that I know I am right. I dont. But I would say I am more likely to be right in this than most of the more outlandish Epstein conspiracy theory "jokes" going on in this forum.
Luckbox,
Are you following Taibbi's comments on X? I am kind of in the same place as him about this whole Epstein thing. In that the evidence we do have doesn't really support a large blackmail ring involving (or not involving) Trump. And it really isn't responsible journalism to say it does.
That is not to see more information couldn't be released that does support this theory. But we are all acting as something is infallibly true, when there is no real concrete evidence to support it.
Because you could say about every single death: "whatever the coroner says that's likely the way it is". And that's both true and also not very insightful.
Why trust the independent medical guy vs. the factually-challenged random internet poster regarding the determination of the cause of death? They are equally qualified at making the determination and are both just as likely to be involved in the conspiracy.
Just came across this, thought it was appropriate and amusing enough to re-post here:
Because no one buys you any. And I think we know why that is.
