= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on More art, less stink: Taking the PU out of PUA - 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 (616)
In a nutshell-of-simplification, I believe this statement is false.
I think people's preferences -- or apparent preferences -- are more malleable than that. As people learn more -- about the world, themselves, and other people -- and learn to think -- if not faster, then at least more powerfully -- they may become susceptible to arguments they wouldn't have been susceptible to before, and the suboptimal game-theoretic equilibrium inherited from the past may begin to break down. At the very least, people are diverse enough that there are bound to be some for whom this is true more than for others. As a result, there is no reason that I can see not to entertain discussion of possible preference-modifications. An individual may find that a particular proposed modification is too difficult to implement, or would even perhaps conflict with deeper, more important preferences; but it is not reasonable in my view for such an individual to thereby conclude that the possibility was not worth considering, or that there won't be a significant number, now or in the future, of other individuals for whom the outcome of this kind introspection will be different.
Still less do I think it reasonable for anyone to attempt to suppress such discussions by means of psychological bullying tactics such as implying -- against all plausibility -- that having such a discussion will noticeably increase the risk to the personal safety of participants on this forum. Such an attempt at suppression may be pardonable, if the fear is genuine, and especially if it comes from somebody whom one has met and likes; but the mere fact that it is pardonable does not make it reasonable, when one's own prior for such fears being rationally justified is somewhere between the probability of a summer snowstorm in Miami and the probability (speaking of sex and violence) that a certain American exchange student and her boyfriend of one week got together with a local drifter to end the life of her friend and roommate in the course of a sadistic orgy held under the influence of cannabis. Exaggeration in the previous sentence is minimal; and no, before anyone asks (or pounces), such a low prior does not derive from beliefs about the statistical incidence of certain kinds of violence, but rather from beliefs about their causal mechanisms.
Thank you for your attention, as it is said by some.
It is reasonable to take precautions even against small risks, when those risks are the sort you run into again and again and must develop habits about. I wear seatbelts even during short car trips with safe drivers in good weather in daylight with minimal traffic at low speed. It is costly to evaluate those factors of risk separately each time I get into a car. It is costly to evaluate the factors that lead you to see this thread as definitely not harmful to me.
Perhaps it is harmless. I've never been injured in a car accident, either (although I've been wearing seatbelts each time I've been in one). But I put on my seatbelt as a reflex which it is unsafe to tamper with, and I ask for protective conventions in conversations on this subject as a reflex which it is unsafe for me to tamper with. Inviting me to take off my metaphorical seatbelt, without a reason other than it being inconvenient for you, demonstrates a willingness to take my concerns lightly and to substitute your judgment for mine. Interestingly, that doesn't make me feel safer.
Despite your use of the trivializing word "inconvenient", the fact is that your personal anxieties do not automatically trump my desires, including my desire (if it exists) to have a discussion about certain topics. You are not the only one with preferences and wishes, and your feeling as safe as possible is not the only concern in the universe.
(I find it notable that while you accuse me of a "willingness to take [your] concerns lightly", you have, so far as I can tell, yet to show any sympathy for "my" concerns as expressed in this thread.)
It would not be costly to evaluate whether or not to put on a seatbelt. What would be costly is a general policy of evaluating every such "reflexive" act. Much less costly, however, would be a general policy of evaluating those reflexive acts whose usefulness has been called into question by intelligent rational people who don't wish you harm. If someone on LW proposed that seatbelts are harmful, I would pay attention. I may or may not end up agreeing, but I would listen to the argument and open that particular "reflex" up to questioning.
You are free to hold irrational beliefs about the dangers posed to you by threads such as this. You are even -- perhaps especially -- free to attempt to convince others that the beliefs you hold are in fact not irrational. You should however not expect others to be intimidated into self-censorship by your claims to special status.
There is a genuine problem here. Like so many other things in our current world, the sexual status quo is not optimal. I have the impression that there are people out there who are very unhappy, but whose unhappiness is not considered a problem by almost anyone other than themselves. I find it regrettable that you are seeking to enforce taboos that prevent the open discussion of this. In principle, this is something I feel I ought to fight. Unfortunately, the costs may be too high for me. The more I engage in these discussions, the more risk I run of being associated with a particular "side" in the "sex wars", not necessarily a side that I want to be associated with. This isn't something I have much of a personal stake in, except insofar as it engages my unusually active empathic tendencies; so it might be best for me to leave it to other people, more willing to take the status hit. I would however like to make at least the following point: even "victimizers" are not innately evil. I have the strong suspicion that lurking behind many a "misogynistic" smirk or scowl is a sad face with authentic tears.