1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ253 | |
| 2 | Ṁ233 | |
| 3 | Ṁ196 | |
| 4 | Ṁ90 | |
| 5 | Ṁ46 |
@musuko384 Betting NO incentivizes the doctors to save him. The doctor can then see the market, bet YES and get a lot of mana if they save him. Betting NO may save him!
@musuko384 The point of prediction markets is to aggregate collective judgments and information accurately. As somebody who hates Charlie Kirk a whole lot, I hope he will somehow survive, and I want to have an accurate understanding of how hopeful I can reasonably be. In an ideal world, nobody feels an obligation to lie about their beliefs for social credit, we all understand that contributing to a market like this is not a moral act, and we all come away with a better understanding of reality (of course there are situations where this doesn't work, but this almost surely isn't one of them.)
@musuko384 because he is an awful person and the outcome of his death would likely be a net positive
@Magnify Whatever you think of him, I find it unlikely that:
You can assess whether he's an awful person
You can judge the consequences of his death.
@musuko384 It is tasteless but so are lots of other bets. What Magnify wrote is at least as tasteless.
@MichaelBlume I actually disagree. There’s a lot of people who stand to benefit, and I’d argue the middle-lower class actually stands to gain the most.
If armed conflict breaks out, dollar numbers don’t matter, supporter count does, and whoever appeals to them more earns support.
In his personal life I cannot, correct, but his effects on policy are blatant and undeniable and awful. I judge by that since it affects orders of magnitude more than his personal life
Surely you’re Joking right? His lack of presence is a net benefit, but of course it can end up badly if someone else takes his place.
My lack of “taste” is nothing compared to what he has said. In fact, he was shot while talking gun violence
@Magnify why do you care what he says as if he's affecting ur daily life lmao
from a moral standpoint, i don't think it's sane to say someone's death is positive
@musuko384 he does affect my daily life. Tariffs, trump, gun violence, car culture, the news cycle, plenty more, *all* affect the things I buy, the places I go, my perceptions of safety. He has an impact on all of them.
The fact you think he doesnt impact your personal daily life too (as presumably an American citizen) is insane.
@Magnify fyi saying his death is a net positive doesn’t actually undo tariffs, Trumpism, or gun culture, it just shows you’d rather see opponents die
it's js dehumanizing
@musuko384 no, but it shows there’s people willing to kill over that sort of thing. Nazis in WW2 didn’t stop till we killed them.
We creep ever closer in that direction.
Kirk also dehumanized himself when he made himself a political figurehead. My interactions with Charlie Kirk literally is only as a political figurehead I’d rather see gone, and so I’m happy it’s happened. If I knew him personally he would be humanized.
Lots of people will deny this mindset even though they carry it, I just think it’s better to be honest about things.
@Magnify There’s a huge difference between WWII Nazis committing genocide and an American commentator with bad takes.
Equating Kirk to that level of threat is a stretch and justifies violence way too easily. Once you start saying some people ‘dehumanize themselves’ by being political figures, you’re basically excusing violence against anyone you dislike enough.
That’s not honesty, it’s literally moral laziness. And beyond politics, he’s also a father with a wife and two kids...his death wouldn’t just be an abstract ‘net positive,’ it's devastating a family
@Magnify I won’t argue from a moral angle since that probably won’t get us far. Instead, here’s a practical point:
Normalizing political violence means both sides could start trying to kill each other. If the left and right have roughly equal chances of “winning,” then the expected value of the whole thing is zero (before even counting the deaths and negative externalities, which makes the net result negative).
Silencing people with violence doesn’t seem to work anyway. Trump was nearly shot in the head, yet he hasn’t changed his behavior.
If anything, political violence seems more likely to radicalize people than to suppress them, imo.
@TiagoChamba also this will almost certainly be a bad look for his critics. Previously neutral people aren't gonna want to be on the side that murders people.
@musuko384 it’s not me who equated Kirk to nazi’s (or similar reprehensible organizations), it was the killer. The reason the killer equated Kirk there is because he uses a lot of their tactics, aspects, and ideals for clout and shock value.
Political violence was and continues to be inevitable, and once certain lines are crossed it’s actually considered morally good and necessary. For some people (this killer) that line has already been crossed. I’m not at the point where I’ll outright say it’s a moral good to start killing, but it’s pretty easy to see how and why people would do that. I will however say it’s a practical good that he is dead.
@Magnify for all you know, the killer was his ex - there’s literally no evidence or info, can’t you wait? It’s sickening how quickly the mob (including lawmakers) start agitating.
@TiagoChamba and for all you know his ex was politically motivated, and even if they weren’t, the impacts are the same. I’m following a logical pattern of similar situations (united health, blackstone) and drawing an obvious pattern.
The end result is that a prominent right wing voice has been silenced. Reason matters a little. I care to talk about what is next, not mope over irrelevant semantic detail
@TiagoChamba I’m glad you recognize the futility of moral angle, as I think it’s irrelevant especially on a platform dedicated to predictive ability. Practical angle is really all I care to think about in regards to this right now really.
I think you’re wrong here on two counts. If you flip a coin, you don’t expect it standing on its edge. Calling a 50/50 a zero sum calculation is incorrect here. Second, I think in the most extreme case of all out civil war, left wing wins and it’s not actually a 50/50 due to every single country in the region allying with the left.
Silencing isn’t the thing they’re looking for, it’s messaging. It (assuming left wing political motivations, which will be assumed even if this isn’t reality) basically is a statement from the left saying “if you infringe on our ideals and rights in this way, we will shoot you” and is intended to act as a deterrent. This strategy does in fact have a lot more success. Plus id put 30% that trump shooting was staged, his ear is in perfect shape and there’s unaddressed inconsistencies.
@Magnify Thank you for the thoughtful response.
My intuition was based around expected value calculations. 50% of a good outcome, together with 50% of an equally bad outcome, is worthless in expectation. Irl, of course, this is only a coarse description of the situation; the chances aren't 50/50, you may not value the outcomes with equal magnitude, and risk aversion would make it so most people look at this even less favorably.
While I think it is likely that the region allies with the left, the USA has very protectable borders; the North-South are bordered by two decidedly weaker militaries, and the East-West is sea, in which the extremely big navy has an advantage. Given this, I'd expect the conflict to be mostly internal. And if this is the case, we must remember that it is the right which currently holds control over the military.
I fear that what you see as a deterrent may instead act as a polarizing force. People on the right may turn to violence against left-leaning politicians (something we've already seen), in which case the Kirk murder acts as the opposite of a deterrant.
Relatedly, even if they don't turn it into violence of their own, the ideology won't dissapear. It will return to the same anonymous forums it came from, but with a vengeance.