= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Document comments on Open Thread: February 2010, part 2 - 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 (857)
When I apply the statute, my justification is along the lines of "people usually only care about spoilers if they're watching a series or planning to watch it soon, which are unlikely given a random person and a random series". Hariant's comment could easily be interpreted as asking for recommendations of anime to watch, in which case "planning to watch (considering watching) it" would be a given.
We cannot meaningfully discuss how DN & ilk hold lessons for LW without discussing plot events; funnily enough, spoilers tend to be about plots. And as I said, applying the principal of charity means not interpreting Hariant's comment that way.
I had to look that up; Wikipedia says that "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.". I thought I was applying it by assuming that you hadn't considered that interpretation of the comment, rather than that you were ignoring it, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "as you said".
(Message edited once.)
Which is more charitable: to interpret someone's comment as typical social fluff inappropriate for even the open threads, or to interpret it as an attempt to collate useful fictional examinations & introductions to LW-related material?