Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

I would like you to apply Occam's Razor to this situation.

What is the simplest explanation that explains all evidence presented?

You can attack the character of the people trying to bring these things to light all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you are complicating something by inventing explanations for it.

The simplest explanation is that someone was looking up Feminist Frequency harassment on Twitter while not logged in and took this and sent it to Anita.

In the post you quoted, I described some things as irrelevant. That's because they are. The only reason they're notable is that the dumb person who made your "evidence" picture willingly misinterpreted them as evidence to build a fake case against Anita. If they hadn't been used in that picture and you hadn't pressed me to dismiss the rest of the claims it made, I would not have mentioned them.

The only relevant argument your picture made was that the person who took the screenshot couldn't have gotten there through a search, but that was not based in fact. I refuted it initially because it was the only point that mattered. You asked me to refute the rest of the details. You do not get to claim I'm complicating things because I did that.

[Neonivek]

What is the simplest explanation that explains all evidence presented?

Let me see... the simplest explanation of everything presented...

Some article makers, reviewers, and what have you either had relationships with people or patreoned and really didn't think much of it.

Some people found out and threw a ruckus and they became so unruly so inflammatory that the sites had to shut down the discussions because they were just being used as troll platforms.

Then a bunch of idiots jumped on the bandwagon and made what was simply "opps" into one giant mess.

But that is just me a partial misanthrope

That's ignoring what started the whole mess, specifically the suppression of TFYC by nearly everyone involved, as well as suppression of any information on the scandals following. It seems a bit more complicated, actually.

"Seems more complicated" doesn't apply to "simplest explanation".

[Frumple]

But that is just me a partial misanthrope

Nah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head, dead on and with little to no wasted effort. Cheers, neo.

[timferius]

Occam's razor doesn't really work that way..... It's simply a method of hypothesis selection, stating that you should pick the hypothesis with the least number of assumptions when examining something, not that that's the correct hypothesis, but just the best place to start.

[(int) magicMissile]

Let me see... the simplest explanation of everything presented...

Some article makers, reviewers, and what have you either had relationships with people or patreoned and really didn't think much of it.

Some people found out and threw a ruckus and they became so unruly so inflammatory that the sites had to shut down the discussions because they were just being used as troll platforms.

Then a bunch of idiots jumped on the bandwagon and made what was simply "opps" into one giant mess.

But that is just me a partial misanthrope

Some journalists have had relationships with people they have written articles about. Note the word "journalist" in there. Not the simplest explanation because you assign a motive to the situation.

Second sentence is NOT the simplest explanation. You are making an assumption at the idea of something becoming a troll platform. Also, you are once again assigning a motive that is not in any evidence, making this not the simplest explanation.

Third sentence, not the simplest explanation. You are assuming these people are idiots.

Finally, you're IGNORING evidence. The direct suppression of threads, the deletion of any incriminating comments (after the point where they are found, which is a bit ridiculous) and the deridation of any opposite opinions.

Please learn Occam's Razor before trying to take the piss.

"Seems more complicated" doesn't apply to "simplest explanation".

Except you're ignoring evidence. Occam's Razor is the simplest explanation which explains all evidence presented.

The simplest explanation is that someone was looking up Feminist Frequency harassment on Twitter while not logged in and took this and sent it to Anita.

In the post you quoted, I described some things as irrelevant. That's because they are. The only reason they're notable is that the dumb person who made your "evidence" picture willingly misinterpreted them as evidence to build a fake case against Anita. If they hadn't been used in that picture and you hadn't pressed me to dismiss the rest of the claims it made, I would not have mentioned them.

The only relevant argument your picture made was that the person who took the screenshot couldn't have gotten there through a search, but that was not based in fact. I refuted it initially because it was the only point that mattered. You asked me to refute the rest of the details. You do not get to claim I'm complicating things because I did that.

So someone searched for @femfreq in a three minute window before taking a picture of the last tweet done by the account (no tweets after that mark), and managed to find this evidence despite the fact Twitter's search is weighted towards heavier posters? Okay.

Let me ask you a question, are you biased in this entire discussion?

[scriver]

Are you biased, magicmissile?

[Graknorke]

I think the answer we're going to end up at is everybody's biased.
Which leads nicely back to the topic this thread started on.

[Toady One]

Given the two locked threads and where this one has decided to go, I don't see a reason to continue with this.