Shadow Starshine (SS) was already tilted before this discussion, ever since I decided we had an Inferential Distance problem and he refused to read any articles to find out what that means.
He also wouldn't discuss the concept when I and others wrote several explanations for him in chat messages. In short it means there are major differences in our background knowledge and premises, and we need to find some points of common ground to build on (but SS refused to try to do that).
For context, here is the SS discussion tree I made for part of my discussion with SS, and here is the VSE discussion tree that he was actually talking about below. I had been unable to get substantive responses to either tree, and sadly that doesn't change in this chat.
This is from the public Fallible Ideas Discord.
curi:
That mindmap by curi is so dishonest
SS, are you going to write down an error in it? then, step 2, explain why you think that error was made dishonestly?
Shadow Starshine:
@curi I'm not writing down an error in it. It's dishonest because of where you started it, like taking a video clip of someone talking out of context to make it seem like there's another problem.
curi:
can you point out how any node is misleading or wrong b/c of missing context? that is, an error.
Shadow Starshine:
The first node makes it look like TheRat's question should be answered or was at all the topic at hand.
Shadow Starshine:
What should be shown is how that question was an avoidance of something already being asked of him.
curi:
which mindmap are you talking about? i figured it was the one about you.
Shadow Starshine:
Negative, TheRat and VSE
curi:
ok, you think rat's question shouldn't have been answered b/c of some message(s) i didn't include in the graph. the appropriate thing for you to do is quote those messages, right? then explain how they indicate rat's question shouldn't be answered.
Shadow Starshine:
Well I don't hold a belief that this would be a fruitful use of my time in a discussion with you in particular, but if someone else wishes to understand where I stand on that and why, they may ask.
curi:
if you won't argue your case, don't make claims here
curi:
you just say over and over that i'm wrong but you never substantiate it
Shadow Starshine:
That's rich coming from you
curi:
i'm the one who makes trees, writes articles, gives details
curi:
i ask you for details when you try to make claims that i'm wrong
curi:
you don't give them
JustinCEO:
ya there's a huge effort asymmetry
curi:
if you think i fucked up in some previous part of a discussion
curi:
provide it
curi:
you just keep referring to my past bad behavior that you don't specify or argue
curi:
when i try to go thru issues with you in detail
Shadow Starshine:
The amount of fuck ups you make is simply not worth my time, especially in a discussion where I want to convince you of them. I just told you if someone else has the same questions, i'll put in the effort.
curi:
you consistently stop part way
curi:
so that they don't get resolved
curi:
you haven't established i was wrong a single time
curi:
you have never made a case i was wrong about anything
curi:
that you have even claimed was objectively adequate
Shadow Starshine:
curi your position has been noted
curi:
since you don't want to resolve disagreements or argue your flaming-adjacent claims, you're on the wrong server.
Shadow Starshine:
Yet again, I'll say this for the third time
Shadow Starshine:
I'm interested in it with other people other than you
curi:
you say i made many fuckups but haven't explained even one
JustinCEO:
so it seems spurious that someone is going to tell me that I've been doing it wrong and that they can tell me the underpinning problems.
SS fyi your ultra hostile attitude towards curi doesn't really serve you well in helping establish your case as a veteran debater to whom a certain level of respect/deference should be granted re: judging discussion issues.
Shadow Starshine:
If I'm on the wrong server specifically because of my disinterest with you in particular, fine. But you can't say my disinterest is categorical.
Shadow Starshine:
and that's one error you can note right now
curi:
his methodology for objectively establishing an error is to write a sloppy sentence or two, then assume he's done
curi:
amazing
Shadow Starshine:
@JustinCEO depends who I'm trying to convince
Shadow Starshine:
I've already established I think curi is a waste of time, far beyond the amount of effort it would take
Shadow Starshine:
just to engage with some shit tier blogger
JustinCEO:
dude wtf
JustinCEO:
so hostile jeez
JustinCEO:
i'm out
curi:
https://curi.us/2232-claiming-you-objectively-won-a-debate
Messages (2)
Shadow Starshine:
I've already established I think curi is a waste of time, far beyond the amount of effort it would take
Shadow Starshine:
just to engage with some shit tier blogger
The perfect description of Curi. some shit tier blogger
#15025
> Shadow Starshine:
>> I've already established I think curi is a waste of time, far beyond the amount of effort it would take
> Shadow Starshine:
>> just to engage with some shit tier blogger
> The perfect description of Curi. some shit tier blogger
37 words (not including the name "Shadow Starshine") yet no productive content at all. No explanations. No arguments. Nothing. So what's the point?
It's not truth-seeking. Anon is not trying to help curi change his mind and he's not trying to help the audience change their minds about curi. He's just doing a social attack. He's trying to fool the already-fooled.