= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lightwave comments on Missing the Trees for the Forest - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (159)
Replying to this separately so it can be voted up/down separatly.
Do you have a bias against feminism that goes beyond disagreement? This sounds to me to be the statement of someone who feels personally injured.
Btw, how is that different from Alicorn feeling 'personally injured' (or offended) by us having PUA discussions on LW? Can't SilasBerta feel offended by any attempts to censor the topic?
I wasn't trying to say he shouldn't be offended. My implication was that because he's offended, SilasBarta is having trouble dealing with the issue rationally. If Alicorn has a similar bias, she hides it better. (Disclaimer: I haven't read all the comments on all the posts this has come up)
Have I claimed to be "personally injured" anywhere? I don't think I have, but if I said something that sounds like that, I'd like to know.
What I'm implying is that both you and SilasBerta are having a negative emotional reaction. Can you say your reaction is justified while his is not?
I don't think I can answer that question unbiasedly, because SilasBarta routinely makes me very frustrated.
Well, he can, but I wouldn't put "being offended by [topic]" and "being offended by being offended by [topic]" in the same categories.
Alicorn is offended by a certain problem she perceives (objectification of women).
SilasBerta is also offended by a problem - silencing of discussions on a problem unrelated to Alicorn's problem, but discussions on which happen to possibly include objectifications of some sort.
I don't see why both shouldn't be on an equal standing.
I think there may be a typo in there somewhere.
I am not trying to downplay SilasBerta's feeling offended, and it is very possible that SilasBerta's offense and Alicorn's offense are about the same topic from different sides. If that is the case than my comment is probably out of place.
Why not?
In my opinion, getting offended by [topic] reflects a potential issue with [topic] that may be worth addressing. Ideally, the offense as a result of the [topic] should disappear due to either (a) [topic] becoming less offensive or (b) the offended becoming unaffected by [topic].
Being offended by being offended by [topic] can be resolved by resolving the first layer of offenses. If there is a problem with the initial offense, getting offended doesn't actually help since the initial offense is not likely to be resolved with the secondary offense.
In addition, a terrible cycle can appear if the initial offended takes offense to the offensive of the initial offense. Granted, you do not always get to choose what offends you, but when dealing with multiple layers of offense I think it is best to deal with the initial offense.
So, perhaps "categories" can be replaced by "priorities."
Not if resolving the first layer depends on resolving the second layer first. I.e. he can't resolve his problem because he's being silenced when he attempts to discuss it.
The first layer problem existed before the second layer problem did. Why would the second layer have to be solved first?
Also, silencing someone is not really the same thing as being offended.
Unless you are talking about a scenario where silencing someone is the solution to the original problem? In that case the second layer really has nothing to do with offense to offense.
I feel there may be a huge misunderstanding here. I wouldn't be surprised if it was my initial comment's assumption that the second offense was an offense to an offense.
Because they've become interconnected.
I'm viewing PUA discussions as part of the solution to SilasBerta's problem. Imposing a ban on such discussions hinders SilasBerta, which is why he's offended. Basically, a ban on PUA discussions is effectively a ban on part of the solution to SilasBerta's problem.
Now, I'm not saying that Alicorn and SilasBerta are equally justified in their requests. But both need to be evaluated as valid concerns.
Hardly. It's not like there aren't plenty of other places on the 'net to get information, free or paid, and if he lives in or near a major metropolitan area there's probably a "lair" he can join and the occasional professionally taught workshop or bootcamp.
Unless you're looking for specifically rationalist-friendly information, this isn't really the place to get it. It's only on-topic here to the extent it's relevant to various sorts of bias and akrasia issues. For example, the PUAs' "3 Seconds Rule" is relevant to akrasia, and I almost brought it up in reply to the "It's all in your head land" article, except that I'm really NOT wanting to start new PUA-related threads.
Well, a ban is a hindrance to the extent that a rationalist community could develop more rigorous and testable theories, and incidentally, they will probably weed out all of the misogynist and objectificationist (is there such a word?) stuff.
If this is the case, than he is not offended by Alicorn's offense. He is offended by a ban on such discussions. Which makes sense and has nothing to do with the layers I was talking about.
Like I said, I think there is misunderstanding of my original comment. To reword this:
As this:
Might help.