wedrifid comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - Less Wrong

48 Post author: lukeprog 05 November 2011 11:06AM

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

Comments (1529)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 11 November 2011 06:35:51AM *  10 points [-]

You are coming across as a dick. Your earlier "pussy" remark made you come across as a sexist dick.

It just occurred to me now and I don't believe I missed the irony when reading the first time. I don't want to imply I consider this to be particularly offensive (well, except the part where you called me a dick) but do you realize that you called me a dick both earlier (about something unrelated) and also here because I used a word for genitalia as a negative descriptor?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 11 November 2011 06:52:20AM *  2 points [-]

Yes, I did realize that. (Although note that I didn't say you are a dick, I said you were coming across as a dick. These aren't the same thing.) Two issues guided that word choice: First, it was an attempt (possibly a poor one) to speak in a language closer to the sort you were using so the point might come across better. Second, in this particular context, the relevant point is that in a highly male environment you were using a negative term for the genitalia of the other gender. That said, neither of these were probably very good arguments. While one could potentially argue that in our society "dick" is more gender neutral as an negative term than "pussy", that argument seems to be more of a rationalization than a genuinely useful argument. I suspect that there may have also been some degree of priming occurring given that I had earlier today had a conversation with a female homo sapiens who expressed disinterest in Less Wrong because it "looked like a sausage-fest" (and also apparently that this thread as well as some of the other relationship related threads were "creepy"). Some amount of Phil Plait's speech was also floating around. But even that is an explanation more than a good reason. So I'll just say that I was aware of what I was doing, made a conscious decision to do so, but in retrospect had poor reasons for doing it.

Comment author: lessdazed 11 November 2011 11:34:37AM 1 point [-]

I suspect that there may have also been some degree of priming occurring given that

Given that wedrifid said this less than a day ago:

In short you in 5 sec do not consist of the same set of atoms at present you. Does that make you think that 5 sec you is not really you?

The five seconds in the future guy is me. The guy from 5 seconds ago... nah, he was kind of a dick.

That's priming.

Comment author: lessdazed 11 November 2011 06:44:59AM *  0 points [-]

Rule 1 was incomplete. Judgments that things are of equal value are obviously suspect as well.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 November 2011 08:04:48AM *  1 point [-]

It should also mention that judgement about whether something is subject to to Rule 1 interpretation should be particularly suspect. Recursive inclusiveness is implicit. For this reason It is also a charge nearly impossible to defend oneself from directly.