= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on The Valentine’s Day Gift That Saves Lives - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (77)
Don't be daft.
It doesn't look like a silly question; steelmanned to some degree it would be "do you have any evidence of this, because if that was true, I'd want to end that practice in my organization". I prefer systems where burden of proof is on the accuser, and whilst you don't need payslips that have as job title "content upvoter", some explanation would be nice.
It's perfectly possible to speak the truth whilst being intellectually dishonest, you two could be arguing past each other - "You're engaging in shady business practices!" "There's no fraud here."
Nope, because InIn is basically Gleb and his wife, that's it, and he, of course, knows perfectly well how "that practice" works.
In any case, we've already circled around this mulberry bush. See e.g. starting from here and reading the replies, or follow the links upthread.
It is certainly possible to be dishonest while speaking the literal truth. However that's not called "arguing past each other", that's called deceit.
That is one well-plucked mulberry bush.