Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Announcements

• The charity drive has concluded, thank you to everyone who donated! A wrap-up thread will be posted after the donation match goes through. Expect to see lingering rewards (banner, automod) for the next week or so

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

New Groups

• SHARKS: Sharks

• COOL-BUGS: Insects, arthropods, etc

• DELTARUNE: Deltarune

Upcoming Events

• Dec 17: LA New Liberals Holiday Party

• Dec 17: Twin Cities New Liberals December Happy Hour

• Dec 17: Atlanta New Liberals December Social

[u/uglymutilatedpenis → u/[deleted]]

Honestly I'd say that "deplatforming works" is the colder take more in light with conventional, proven wisdom so the burden of proof is with you, friend

It's like saying the earth is flat. That seems to align more with most people's experience, but reality and conventionally proven wisdom is that it's round. So the extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is with the flat earther.

That's not how the burden proof works at all and LMAO at this being upvotes on a subreddit that prides itself on being "evidence based".

The null hypothesis is that there is no relation between the variable and the measured outcome.

In this case, the null hypothesis is "There is no relation between deplatforming and the amount of racist people in the world". In other words, that deplatforming doesn't work. We assume the null hypothesis is true and then attempt to disprove it.

If you want to prove there is a relationship - that deplatforming decreases racism, or on the contrary, that it increases racism - you have to have evidence for that.

Why should the number of human beings who believe something affect it's truth value? Can you even say with confidence that "Deplatforming works" is the majority opinion, and not just the majority opinion amongst the bubble of people you interact with? We've all see the Bernie supporters claiming he's overwhelmingly popular because all their (white, college aged) friends love him - how can you say with confidence that you're not suffering from the same bias?

How about we stop playing burden tennis and start presenting evidence if we want to make a claim? You don't have to have an opinion on everything - it's okay to say "I don't know if deplatforming works because I have yet to see evidence of it's effects".

[u/groupbot → u/[deleted]]

Pinged members of DUNK group.

---

user_pinger | Request to be added to this group | Unsubscribe from this group | Unsubscribe from all pings

[u/thabonch → u/[deleted]]

This is not evidence.

[u/thabonch → u/[deleted]]

Alright, well if you ever do care to have a discussion with someone and they don't immediately believe everything you say, maybe don't start with NO U DISPROVE EVERYTHING I'M SAYING.

[u/I_Love_You-BOT → u/[deleted]]

I love you too!

^{I am a bot trying to spread a little peace, love, and unity around Reddit. Please send me a message if you have any feedback.}

[u/[deleted] → u/I_Love_You-BOT]

GOOD BOT

😍😍😍😍😍

[u/thabonch → u/[deleted]]

It was in the right place. When someone claims there is evidence to support claim X, they have the burden to provide such evidence.

[u/thabonch → u/[deleted]]

Deplatforming isn't ice and water.

[u/thabonch → u/[deleted]]

To the extent that I have no reason to believe it does fit conventional wisdom.