MaeBorowski [she/her]

I mentioned this anecdote in another thread a couple weeks ago, but I think it fits here too:

It’s not even just chuds ime, it’s the majority of the US population that thinks the “further left” something or someone is, the more “liberal” it is. Even many liberals think this.

A while back I told someone (an acquaintance I met irl) that I considered myself a communist and their response to me was:

“I’m pretty liberal myself, but communism is too liberal even for me.”

There were several other people present and none of them thought this was a strange thing to say.

Typical hexbear reply

Unfortunately, you are right

Yes, typically hexbear replies are right.

It’s not unfortunate though, it’s simply a matter of having an understanding of the world and a willingness to accept it and engage with it. It’s too bad that you seem not to want that understanding or that you lack the willingness to accept it.

My science is not. I like my bubble.

How can you possibly square that first short sentence with the second? Are you really that willfully hypocritical? Yes, “your” science is political. No science escapes it, and the people who do science thinking themselves and their work is unaffected by their ideology are the most effected by ideology. No wonder you like your bubble - from within it, you don’t have to concern yourself with any of the real world or even the smallest sliver of self reflection. But all it is is a happy, self-reinforcing delusion. You pretend to be someone who appreciates science, but if you truly did, you would be doing everything you can to recognize your unavoidable biases rather than denying them while simultaneously wallowing in them, which is what you are openly admitting to doing whether you realize it or not.

find possibilities how ML can support people with certain tasks

Marxism-Leninism?

Oh, Machine Learning.

Science is not political

in an ideal world maybe, but that is not our world. In reality science is always always political. It is unavoidable.

Yeah, this is silly (and fun) but avoids the real problem of course. The question can be like you said, “which came first, the chicken or the chicken’s egg?” And for those that still want a literal answer, wikipedia says:

If the question refers to chicken eggs specifically, the answer is still the egg, but the explanation is more complicated.[8] The process by which the chicken arose through the interbreeding and domestication of multiple species of wild jungle fowl is poorly understood, and the point at which this evolving organism became a chicken is a somewhat arbitrary distinction. Whatever criteria one chooses, an animal nearly identical to the modern chicken (i.e., a proto-chicken) laid a fertilized egg that had DNA making it a modern chicken due to mutations in the mother’s ovum, the father’s sperm, or the fertilised zygote.

As an alternative, though it’s a bit more of an ungainly mouthful, I like: “which came first, the first species to lay an egg or the egg of the first species to lay an egg?” That one is a bit harder but you might still be able to tease out an answer. That way I think it gets a bit more into the problem of qualitative vs quantitative when you do (which is partly why I say below that this is related to the problem of the heap). Of course it’s really meant to be a philosophical problem anyway, and in that sense, it remains a paradox. It’s a way of making an analogy for a “causation dilemma” and gets at the idea of infinite regress and the paradoxes that brings up. It’s also related to the sorites paradox or the problem of the heap, which actually is an element discussed in Marxist (more because of Engels) dialectics.