I offered some criticism in one of his markets about how the language he used was imprecise, a bit inflammatory, and likely to not be resolvable as written.
To be fair to him, I know he's a (sometimes aggressively) direct guy and even though I definitely tend to not be as direct I figured he'd appreciate a direct approach. He didn't, it wasn't a productive conversation, and it ended with him blocking me and hiding a comment about how the language he used could be seen as a dogwhistle.
On the whole, we've had fairly productive interactions before this. But, of course, being blocked means I'm going to shy away from Manifold's most prolific market creator, as I can't trust the reliability of his resolutions when communication is barred. Will he unblock me, or is this bridge burned? I must be unblocked at the end of the month *and* when I go to resolve this question for this to resolve YES, in any other case this resolves NO.
I don't intend to make overtures to be unblocked nor do I intend to antagonize him further, since I like respecting the boundaries people set for themselves and I generally try to be an agreeable fellow, but we're all messy humans at the end of the day so who knows how this shakes out.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ543 | |
| 2 | Ṁ4 | |
| 3 | Ṁ1 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 | |
| 5 | Ṁ0 |
I blocked you because your comments made no sense, and seemed politically-motivated rather than an attempt at useful contribution to the discussion.
Specifically, the argument of "we aren't sequencing people's genes so we can't know their biological sex" is obvious nonsense; we can ask them, or extrapolate from a representative sample, just like all other social research does. I have a hard time believing that you don't understand that surveys can ask people for information about them, and looking at my market/comment history would make it obvious that it was not a dogwhistle for transmisia or whatever you were trying to imply, so I suspected you were trying to start some sort of drama, and didn't want to deal with it.
This market makes me think I was mistaken, though I'm still very confused as to why you would have made your original comments in that case. But I'm happy to give you another chance; I have nothing against you personally, I just have no interest in wasting time on pointless culture war mudslinging.
@evergreenemily could be bc of the badge, but it's probably just because I caught him when he was having a rough day or something
@evergreenemily I didn't block you because your comment didn't seem like it was trying to be deliberately inflammatory like Pat's was, and was at least a little more self-consistent. (The claim that "biological sex" might offend some people is true and a valid thing to point out, whereas the claim that it's impossible to get data on people's biological sex is not.) It still wasn't great; claiming that the existence of intersex people invalidates the category of "biological sex" makes about as much sense as claiming that the existence of this vehicle invalidates the categories of "car" and "plane". But your overall presence on Manifold seems positive enough that I valued being able to continue to interact with you, and chose the line of just not responding instead.
@IsaacKing My entire point was about the terminology you were using. "Biological male" is okay, "biological man" is a conflation of sex & gender that causes dysphoria.
@evergreenemily Update: he appears to have finally blocked me, but for expressing shock/dismay at the fact that he apparently does not think there is a moral problem with adults having sex with minors (?!?!?)
