= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Thomas C. Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict" - 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 (148)
You do realize that the point of my proposed strategy was to prevent the destruction of Earth (from a potential nuclear war between the US and USSR), and not "empire building"?
I don't understand why Richard and you consider MAD acceptable, but my proposal beyond the pale. Both of you use the words "friendly power in peacetime", which must be relevant somehow but I don't see how. Why would it be ok (i.e., fit for inclusion in the human race) to commit to murdering millions of non-combatants of an enemy power in wartime in order to prevent nuclear war, but not ok to commit to murdering millions of non-combatants of a friendly power in peacetime in service of the same goal?
I also took Richard's comment personally (he did say "your bland willingness", emphasis added), which is probably why I didn't respond to it.
Well, this is evidence against using second-person pronouns to avoid "he/she".
He could easily have said "bland willingness to" rather than "your bland willingness" so that doesn't seem to be an example where a pronoun is necessary.
No, it's an example where using "you" has caused someone to take something personally. Given that the "he/she" problem is that some people take it personally, I haven't solved the problem, I've just shifted it onto a different group of people.