Incline Josh Sawyer appreciation station

[Jedi Master Radek]

Sawyer left aside than when SPD proposed an alliance to KPD - to gain the majority in Reichstag and cockblock NSDAP - KPD refused, for the directives from Komintern were to treat SPD as foremost enemy and NSDAP as secondary. The rest is history.

He gets his history from wikipedia, be kind.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

It was quite some time since I read something as stupid as this article. Thanks for wasting my time.

You're right, what could the guy who co-created wikipedia know. Clearly you know far more than he does about the thing he created.

They guy is literally upset that labeling alternative medicine as pseudoscience is bad because its not neutral

Because labeling it as "pseudoscience' violates Wikipedia's NPOV you dumbass.

Calling pseudoscience a pseudoscience doesn't violate any sensible neutrality guidelines. Encyclopedias exist to give their readers access to facts. If someone shouts that UK capital is Manchester, it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should take "neutral stance" on the issue and "teach the controversy". Jesus Christ, Rusty, keep it together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

I understand you're an ESL, but come on.

Stating facts is not taking sides. Medical pseudoscience is either an unproved therapy or therapy proved not to work. Pseudoscience is not a side in a scientific discourse. Merely having an opinion doesn't make you a side. Your reading of neutrality guideline is completely insane, because its natural conclusion would lead to every article having hundreds off "... but some think that....". Just imaging an article about cancer makes me shiver, it would have a list of 10 000 bogus medical claims from all over the internet and would end with "who knows what the truth is"

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Sawyer left aside than when SPD proposed an alliance to KPD - to gain the majority in Reichstag and cockblock NSDAP - KPD refused, for the directives from Komintern were to treat SPD as foremost enemy and NSDAP as secondary. The rest is history.

He gets his history from wikipedia, be kind.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

It was quite some time since I read something as stupid as this article. Thanks for wasting my time.

You're right, what could the guy who co-created wikipedia know. Clearly you know far more than he does about the thing he created.

They guy is literally upset that labeling alternative medicine as pseudoscience is bad because its not neutral

Because labeling it as "pseudoscience' violates Wikipedia's NPOV you dumbass.

Calling pseudoscience a pseudoscience doesn't violate any sensible neutrality guidelines. Encyclopedias exist to give their readers access to facts. If someone shouts that UK capital is Manchester, it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should take "neutral stance" on the issue and "teach the controversy". Jesus Christ, Rusty, keep it together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

I understand you're an ESL, but come on.

Stating facts is not taking sides. Medical pseudoscience is either an unproved therapy or therapy proved not to work. Pseudoscience is not a side in a scientific discourse. Merely having an opinion doesn't make you a side. Your reading of neutrality guideline is completely insane, because its natural conclusion would lead to every article having hundreds off "... but some think that....". Just imaging an article about cancer makes me shiver, it would have a list of 10 000 bogus medical claims from all over the internet and would end with "who knows what the truth is"

You're a perfect example of why we can't have anything nice.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Sawyer left aside than when SPD proposed an alliance to KPD - to gain the majority in Reichstag and cockblock NSDAP - KPD refused, for the directives from Komintern were to treat SPD as foremost enemy and NSDAP as secondary. The rest is history.

He gets his history from wikipedia, be kind.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

It was quite some time since I read something as stupid as this article. Thanks for wasting my time.

You're right, what could the guy who co-created wikipedia know. Clearly you know far more than he does about the thing he created.

They guy is literally upset that labeling alternative medicine as pseudoscience is bad because its not neutral

Because labeling it as "pseudoscience' violates Wikipedia's NPOV you dumbass.

Calling pseudoscience a pseudoscience doesn't violate any sensible neutrality guidelines. Encyclopedias exist to give their readers access to facts. If someone shouts that UK capital is Manchester, it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should take "neutral stance" on the issue and "teach the controversy". Jesus Christ, Rusty, keep it together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

I understand you're an ESL, but come on.

Stating facts is not taking sides. Medical pseudoscience is either an unproved therapy or therapy proved not to work. Pseudoscience is not a side in a scientific discourse. Merely having an opinion doesn't make you a side. Your reading of neutrality guideline is completely insane, because its natural conclusion would lead to every article having hundreds off "... but some think that....". Just imaging an article about cancer makes me shiver, it would have a list of 10 000 bogus medical claims from all over the internet and would end with "who knows what the truth is"

You're a perfect example of why we can't have anything nice.

Yes, because encyclopedias not differentiating between facts or fiction are such a nice thing to have.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Yes, because encyclopedias not differentiating between facts or fiction are such a nice thing to have.

"Should we explain the other side and the evidence against it? No, just defame them with derogatory terms with no clear definition and move on. If they attempt to present their side, we simply censor them. We're superior, after all."
Yes, you're the perfect example of why Wikipedia is a failed project. A living embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect.

Hey, quick question, why isn't psychology called a pseudoscience on its wikipedia page by the way? A field where over half of the studies can't be replicated sure doesn't sound scientific to me, but what do I know.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

"Should we explain the other side and the evidence against it? No, just defame them with derogatory terms with no clear definition and move on. If they attempt to present their side, we simply censor them. We're superior, after all."
Yes, you're the perfect example of why Wikipedia is a failed project. A living embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect.

Pseudoscience has a pretty clear definition. It's absurd to demand that scientific article on encyclopedia would waste time explaining every pseudoscientific alternative take on the subject. I go to encyclopedia to learn what the thing is, not what it isn't. I also love how you use dunning-kruger effect to argue for pseudoscience inclusivity

Hey, quick question, why isn't psychology called a pseudoscience on its wikipedia page by the way? A field where over half of the studies can't be replicated sure doesn't sound scientific to me, but what do I know.

1) Replication crisis isn't enough to call psychology a pseudoscience. It's a solid reason to rebuild psychological knowledge, throw some assumptions to the trashbin and spend more resources on replicating previous studies. Psychology is still a relatively young scientific field, so it's pretty normal that the knowledge is going to change a lot. Just look how much scientific revolutions other fields have gone through pass the centuries.
2) There is a whole section about replication crisis on wikipedia psychology article. There are section about other problems with psychological methodology.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Pseudoscience has a pretty clear definition.

How can there be a clear definition of pseudoscience if there is no singular, clear definition of what is science? There have been whole books written on the topic of what is science.
Many things improperly mislabeled as pseudoscience ended up being actual science, and many things considered hard science(e.g., phrenology) ended up becoming pseudoscience. Sounds strange to me if there is a clear definition of what pseudoscience is!

It's absurd to demand that scientific article on encyclopedia would waste time explaining every pseudoscientific alternative take on the subject.

The article was entirely about the subject it was supposed to discuss -- not some "alternative take" -- but immediately dismissed it with a derogatory term intended to discredit it from the start. The NPOV exists for a reason, not something to be applied when you agree with the topic at hand.

1) Replication crisis isn't enough to call psychology a pseudoscience. I

If someone proposed a cure for cancer that couldn't be replicated you'd call it a pseudoscience. But when most of an entire field that purports to be scientific cannot be replicated, it's something else entirely. Your bias is showing.

2) There is a whole section about replication crisis on wikipedia psychology article.

There's a whole section defending psychology and trying to refute the replication crisis you mean. NPOV for me, not for thee.


By the way, the "replication crisis" has essentially been known since at least 1962 when Wolins published his paper on it.

 

[Ontopoly]

I just wanted to thank Josh Sawyer for making IWD2. What the fuck are you guys on about?

 

[Ontopoly]

I actually liked the time loop section in IWD2. Riding a boat around lava was pretty cool. I bet that was one of Josh Sawyer's ideas.

 

[Ninjerk]

Josh is now on Day 2 of mocking people for fake accounts of their very young children having dramatic levels of political awareness.

 

[Atlantico]

If anyone thought Josh was woke, that tweet above should put that idea to permanent rest.

Leftie, sure. Way to cerebral to be woke.

 

[normie]

If anyone thought Josh was woke, that tweet above should put that idea to permanent rest.

Leftie, sure. Way to cerebral to be woke.

he and Dollarhyde crowdfunded the rape of a child, that's pretty woke

damn, Sawyer, you're a sicko, you might as well raped the little girl yourself

wow, just wow

 

[Atlantico]

he and Dollarhyde crowdfunded the rape of a child, that's pretty woke

It's a bail-fund from Minnesota.

So, when you say *he* crowdfunded the rape of a child, you mean he gave money to a fund that then gave money to bail a guy out, who had raped a child?

Just clarifying here.

 

[underground nymph]

josh sawyer had his heart at good place in attempt to recreate that BG feel with POE but somehow things didn't turn out that well

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

They could've made something great if they hadn't tried to stick all the IE games in a blender. Obsidian didn't and don't have the writing talent to produce another PST, but they could've made a fun OGL adventure if they'd been content with modest, serviceable writing.

What I don’t like about Obsidian is that they always had this idea — to develop their own franchise and start making big cash without being obliged to make payments to anybody. Not a big deal you say? Sure, if you are not scamming your player base with fake intentions about reviving old classics, everyone have a soft spot for.

 

[normie]

he and Dollarhyde crowdfunded the rape of a child, that's pretty woke

It's a bail-fund from Minnesota.

So, when you say *he* crowdfunded the rape of a child, you mean he gave money to a fund that then gave money to a guy who had raped a child?

Just clarifying here.

yes

 

[Ontopoly]

Please, everyone, I feel like this thread is getting hijacked. I don't care about American politics. I just thought the guy did some good things for the industry and deserved some acknowledgement for that.

 

[Atlantico]

yes

OK, a further clarification, isn't the following screenshot:

a correct screenshot of a tweet Sawyer made, and the screenshot you posted has been Photoshopped (rather crudely)?

So in reality, Sawyer is disagreeing about a California pro-pedo law and he has donated to a fund, which posts bail for criminals (alledged and real) in Minnesota.

Sounds like a typical leftie. Not woke.

Then he'd be writing in support of the pro-pedo law and donating to NAMBLA or sth.

 

[Ol' Willy]

I don't care about American politics.

But Josh cares about them.

 

[Häyhä]

I just wanted to thank Josh Sawyer for making IWD2. What the fuck are you guys on about?

Think Josh Sawyer ever visited Compton back in the day?

He's a studio gangsta.

 

[NJClaw]

Josh is a cutie, and whoever says otherwise should be thrown in jail. Luckily for you, Josh doesn't believe in prison sentences.

 

[Ontopoly]

The bill is not protecting pedophiles who sexually abuse kids, the bill is just expanding the law to include oral and anal sex instead of just vaginal. The law is nothing new. Also, all kids are innocent when it comes to things like this, adding innocent before kids there is really weird. Makes one think whether it's not going to protect the kids that aren't innocent, who don't exist because when it comes to things like this, they're all innocent. You're all a bunch of idiots for falling for some click baitey titles on twitter.

Anyways, I don't think PoE is that good of a game but I'm glad Josh Sawyer created it because it showed that there was interest in that type of game again and led the way for a bunch of better studios such as owl cat to create their games. Thanks, Josh Sawyer, I appreciate you. As do we all, here in the Josh Sawyer Appreciation Station.

 

[normie]

yes

OK, a further clarification, isn't the following screenshot:

a correct screenshot of a tweet Sawyer made, and the screenshot you posted has been Photoshopped (rather crudely)?

So in reality, Sawyer is disagreeing about a California pro-pedo law and he has donated to a fund, which posts bail for criminals (alledged and real) in Minnesota.

Sounds like a typical leftie. Not woke.

Then he'd be writing in support of the pro-pedo law and donating to NAMBLA or sth.

no, it's gimped

 

[Bester]

Josh is a cutie, and whoever says otherwise should be thrown in jail. Luckily for you, Josh doesn't believe in prison sentences.

Me neither, I think serious criminals should be terminated. Are we on the same page with Josh?

 

[NJClaw]

Josh is a cutie, and whoever says otherwise should be thrown in jail. Luckily for you, Josh doesn't believe in prison sentences.

Me neither, I think serious criminals should be terminated. Are we on the same page with Josh?

 

[Roguey]

If anyone thought Josh was woke, that tweet above should put that idea to permanent rest.

Leftie, sure. Way to cerebral to be woke.

Like many other Something Awful goons, he's making fun of Ginsburg-deifying liberals. He's 100% prog.

 

[Atlantico]

Like many other Something Awful goons, he's making fun of Ginsburg-deifying liberals. He's 100% prog.

Not the same thing as woke. Those who deify RGB are.

He's 100% leftie/prog (same thing), and I said so before. Not the same as being woke. That's a whole different level of insanity.