[FRIAM] Graal VM

[uǝlƃ ☣]

On 2/22/20 7:45 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Glen writes:
> 
> < By asking for more examples, it seems the original one (Ellison's Trump support) isn't meaningful for you? Another example might be learning that your organization accepted money from a convicted sex offender like Epstein. These are triggers for some people. They'd trigger me, too. >
> 
> A reason I can see for avoiding a term like EI is because others might not have a binding for it, or there are too many different bindings observed for it.   And, specifically, that it is "pompous" to use the term if it is expected there is no binding -- a way to bully the  conversation in some direction putting the other party at a disadvantage.   But it is hypocritical if one turns around and assumes there are shared values and that we should or do all have them.   This is arguing in bad faith because some values are assumed to be mandatory and other optional, rather than all things being optional. 

Well, a) I didn't assume any shared values. I explicitly stated that such things are triggers for *some* people. I didn't say *all* people should be triggered by getting money from Epstein. And, given the popular culture at the moment I said I would *advise* Pinker to install a trigger, not that he must or even *should*. So, b) if you're accusing me of arguing in bad faith for rejecting the need for a sophisticated concept like EI, I think it's a false accusation.

Even in my first post, I think I made the explicit comment that it doesn't matter whether the Oracle employee likes or dislikes that Ellison supports Trump. What matters is that the employee knows that Ellison = Oracle, hence Oracle supports Trump. And the question was whether that's a good trigger to have, regardless of how you react to the trigger.

So, there are no shared values, here, only a rejection that we need sophisticated rhetoric like EI.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ