You can help us in resolving options by spending at least 1 mana on each tweet you have an opinion on. Buy YES if you think it's a good take and NO if you think it's a bad take.
Many markets come in the form of "is this tweet a good take?" so I thought we'd try just doing the most direct possible version of that.
You can submit any "hot take" tweet, as well as a quote from the tweet or a neutral summary of the take.The tweet can be from any time, but I think more recent hot takes would be better.
I may N/A options for quality control, or edit them to provide a more neutral summary.
As a trader, you should buy any amount of YES in tweets you think are Good Takes, buy any amount of NO in tweets you think are Bad Takes. I will leave the definition of those terms up to you. The amount of shares doesn't matter for the resolution, one share of yes is one vote and one hundred shares of yes is also one vote.
If I think you are voting purely as a troll, such as buying no in every option, I may block you or disregard your votes. Please vote in good faith! But hey, I can't read your mind. Ultimately this market is on the honor system.
Note that market prices will be a bit strange here, because this is simultaneously a market and a poll. If you sell your shares, you are also removing your vote.
The market will close every Saturday at Noon Pacific. I will then check the positions tab on options that have been submitted.
If there is a clear majority of YES holders, the option resolves YES. If there is a clear majority of NO holders, the option resolves NO. If it's very close and votes are still coming in, the option will remain un-resolved. The market will then re-open for new submissions, with a new close date the next week. This continues as long as I think the market is worth running. It does not matter what % the market is at, and bots holding a position are also counted. In a tie, the tweet will not resolve that week.
I may update these exact criteria to better match the spirit of the question if anyone has any good suggestions, so please leave a comment if you do.
Related questions
@Lorelai there are thinkpieces being made to answer this question:
@Najawin Hey sorry don't wanna like scroll down the 300 message thread and all that. I don't really study philosophy of religion and find theology CRINGE. You and @PlasmaBallin went over theistic activism real quick and basically dismissed it as lunacy. Are there any sort of good sources to read on that (as to why it's incoherent)?
Quick primer. (When in doubt, check the SEP.) If you want an actual article, I quite like Davidson "A Demonstration Against Theistic Activism". William Lane Craig of all people has basically argued that theists should accept nominalism because abstract objects that aren't God are actually kinda sketchy for theists. (See "Anti Platonism" in "Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects" or "In Defense of Absolute Creationism", where his "defense" amounts to "uh, yeah, you could technically end up with a coherent view here, but it's in name only, these abstract objects you end up with don't actually have any metaphysically distinct functions from what nominalists do.")
It's important to note that part of the reason it's seen as so fringe, (but by no means the whole reason) is that divine simplicity is generally regarded as passé these days. Again, the best primer of that is always the SEP article, but if you want an actual article, Plantinga is the general reference given, "Does God Have a Nature?". (It is also important to note that any theist who doesn't study analytic philosophy and accepts it as a valid framework for analyzing God is likely to call Plantinga a heretic for this view.)
(Note that I am not a philosopher of religion, and my knowledge here comes from my sins in a past life oh so long ago. Ask your local philosopher of religion if you want in depth answers tbh.)
@Najawin Hey man, thanks for the sources. Especially Platinga. I skimmed it and I especially liked this deduction
(p. 23-25) And what, besides the example of Kant, might prompt someone to hold such an extraordinary view? Perhaps an argument of the following sort:
(1) God transcends human experience; we cannot observe or in any other way experience him.
Therefore:
(2) Our concepts do not apply to God
This inference is doubly defective, and defective in an instructive fashion. In the first place, (1) clearly says something about God: that he transcends human experience. So one who offers this argument must suppose that God transcends human experience. She also supposes, clearly enough, that we do have some grasp of what it is to transcend human experience; else how would she know (as she thinks she does know) that if God transcends human experience, then (2) is true? So the person who offers this argument must suppose both that God transcends human experience, and that we know what it is to transcend human experience. But if those suppositions are true, then at least one of our concepts does apply to God: in which case (2), the conclusion of the argument, is false. So one who seriously offers this argument is committed to holding that its conclusion is false; and this means the argument cannot coherently be advanced. And this difficulty, obviously enough, attaches itself to any attempt to argue for (2). Any argument for (2) will have to specify some property P God has--a property in virtue of which our concepts don't apply to God. But then one who offers the argument must suppose both that we have the concept of P and this concept applies to God, so that the argument collapses into self-referential incoherence.
(p. 61-62) We are therefore left with our original dilemma. We must hold either that God has a nature, which seems to run counter to the sovereignty-aseity intuition, or else we give full sway to the intuition and put up with the consequence that God has no nature at all. But initially, at least, this seems an unpalatable consequence. For if God has no nature, then no property is essential to him...Still further: existence is a property he has; but if it is not essential to him, he could have existed, but existed it--i.e., existed and not existed."
Yeah, there's a reason why Plantinga is one of the most well respected philosophers alive, even if he's in a field (PhilRel) that's sorta seen as a little gauche. Much of his work is controversial, and by no means is there any clear consensus on any part of it, but damn if it's not brilliant in ways that completely change the conversations people were having.
Yeah, to be fair, one objection to the tweet would be that he turned around the dumpster fire left by COVID, but not the one left by Trump. We still have hyperpartisanship and stuff like the conservative SCOTUS supermajority. But Biden did reverse many of Trump's policies, too, it was just impossible to reverse literally everything he did.
Yeah, in Biden's recent campaign speeches, he always hammered the point that the US lost jobs between the start and end of Trump's presidency. Other economic metrics would show a similar story.
But I think it's misleading at best to blame Trump for that. COVID hit every developed country pretty hard, so the impact would probably have been roughly similar regardless of who was president.