Psychohistorian comments on Rationality Quotes: May 2011 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: CronoDAS 02 May 2011 02:33AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (122)
Tags: quotes

Comments (122)

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

Comment author: Psychohistorian 05 May 2011 02:56:12AM *  0 points [-]

I find it very interesting that this quote, which is also political, does not appear to have been heavily downvoted. It's doubtlessly much less contentious among the particular demographics of this site, but it's probably more politically antagonistic among the population in general - I don't know, but I suspect pacifists are at least as common as libertarians, and this is far more antagonistic towards them.

So why upvote that quote but downvote this one?

Comment author: wedrifid 05 May 2011 04:17:39AM *  4 points [-]

So why upvote that quote?

  • Because it has Nobby at his best.
  • It is about cutting through bullshit. Ruthlessly. It takes a slogan "War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing." and utterly tears it to shreds. Because it is obviously and overwhelmingly wrong for the kind of reasons we have all sorts of posts about here.
  • It's exactly the response I would make if someone tried the "What is it good for?" rhetorical question on me. Come to think of it I have used the same response.
  • If something is transparently and obviously contradicted without even having to make two inferential leaps then politics hasn't even had a chance to kill your mind.
  • Naive pacifists are annoying. (And dangerous.)
  • It is a necessary counter to that obnoxious 'never ever never nerr nerr bullet' quote that somehow became popular here.

but downvote this one?

I upvoted (or rather countered one downvote) on this one.

Comment author: [deleted] 05 May 2011 09:48:00AM 2 points [-]

Upvotes and downvotes probably weight various factors. Hypothetically, two equally political statements might not be equally false, equally obnoxious, equally brilliant, equally hilarious, and so on.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 05 May 2011 03:29:39PM 0 points [-]

True. My entire point is that I'm curious as to which is going on here. I suspect that people down-voting this one are explaining their actions by saying it's too "political," whereas they are not applying the exact same formula to the other one. This indicates that, "It's too political" actually just means, "It's politics I disagree with."

Of course, I admit it's possible that everyone who downvoted for political reasons downvoted both, and the other was just more popular. I don't think that's likely, which I why I asked what people are doing. Could admittedly have phrased it better.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit