= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on Rationality and Relationships September 2011 - 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 (101)
I wouldn't want to point fingers at people this way even if we were talking about unambiguous and agreed-upon instances of errors, let alone in cases like this, where it would open whole cans of worms. It would look like I'm being confrontational against individuals, rather than pointing out a general problem.
On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to ask my above question in this context. Given the previous history of discussions about this topic, what is the reason to consider the first explanation as more probable than the second? (And what would be the cause of the change assumed by the first one?)
The third alternative is to try things differently. It's not helpful to make no effort and then ask "Have things magically changed, or will this fail?"
I like to, when possible, jump on unsubstantiated accusations and ask for evidence, rather than argue about opinions. We can make progress by better applying the norm that accusations against people on LW need evidence and examples of at least possible wrongdoing.
If the first explanation is even fairly likely, it's worth not suggesting suppressing a topic. Greater probability is not necessary.