cousin_it comments on The Nature of Offense - Less Wrong

86 Post author: Wei_Dai 23 July 2009 11:15AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (173)
Tags: community status

Comments (173)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 23 July 2009 03:56:22PM *  13 points [-]

I'm reminded of the medieval "point of honor" that nobles were entitled to and commoners weren't. Perceiving an offense and successfully thwarting it is a karma mint, so seeking out offense makes sense, especially if other people will likely support you. Not without its harms, of course, because social status is much like a zero-sum game - especially in conflict situations.

Not convinced at all that "offense" is meaningfully different from "righteous anger". It's pretty clear that one of those concepts is meant to be pigeonholed as good and the other as bad, and people are trying to invent a reasonable-sounding definition that would facilitate such pigeonholing; but that's already reason enough for me to discount the whole discussion.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 23 July 2009 05:28:30PM 4 points [-]

"Karma mint" is a great phrase.

I believe that anger is what fuels territorial defense, territorial defense is enough work that it needs some fuel, and that people need some territory, so there might be a useful distinction between the emotions which drive legitimate defense of self and others as compared to looking for conflict for the fun of it or to gain unfair advantages.

Maybe some of the discussion at Slactivist can be summarized as checking to see whether the angry person is looking for positive sum or negative-to-zero sum solutions.

The situation is made more complicated because a person can be genuinely abused and be looking for negative-to-zero sum solutions.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 25 July 2009 08:27:49AM 0 points [-]

What is the medieval "point of honor"? Wikipedia, Google, and Bing are all failing me...

Comment author: cousin_it 25 July 2009 08:37:37AM *  6 points [-]

In general, look up what constituted a valid reason for dueling in the Middle Ages. For example, here:

To illustrate the judicial duel I will give a synopsis of the account of the combat at Moulins, France on February 17, 1538. During this duel Lion de Barbencois (Sieur de Sarzay) did combat François de Saint-Julien (Sieur de Veniers). A quarrel had been in progress for many years between Sarzay and a gentleman by the name of Sieur de La Tour-Landry. Sarzay had sworn that La Tour-Landry had fled like a coward during the battle of Pravia in 1525 (where Sarzay was not even present). La Tour-Landry's honor was placed in jeopardy by this and demanded that Sarzay give the source of this information. Sarzay related that he had gotten the information from Veniers who vehemently denied the accusation of supplying the information; thus giving Sarzay the Lie. Now, the quarrel changed from Sarzay and La Tour-Landry to Sarzay and Veniers. Thus the duel was not held to clear La Tour-Landry of the charge of cowardice on the field but to dispel the suspicion of a lie. Gossip true, but a lie. In this duel, Sarzay was the injured party since he was accused of lying. After the challenge was given the King was petitioned for a field.

The Wikipedia page on Duel also gives a vivid flavor of the time.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit