= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - 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)
"You can't handle the truth" is practically always a semantic stop sign. If you can't explain why a concept can't be discussed and convince others of the truth of that fact, then there's no reason to take the position seriously.
How about "there is no such thing as anonymity on-line and I don't want to loose my job/go to prison/have my wife leave me"?
If your beliefs cause you to risk losing your job, being imprisoned, or having your spouse leave you, then you have bigger problems. Not posting your thoughts here is unlikely to help.
And posting, "I have an interesting idea, but social pressure prevents me from stating it" is worse. People who might be sympathetic have no reason to take that assertion seriously, while people who would punish you for your thoughts now have reason to be suspicious and catch your inevitable slip-up (or they might confabulate a case against you that has nothing to do with what you've actually do wrong).
In short, if the rule is "Don't talk about Fight Club," then hinting about your neat evening activity is not helpful in communicating or in avoiding trouble.
In practice the exact opposite tends to happen. People who are sympathetic tend to pick up on subtle cues, whereas mainstream people are so used to actively avoiding thinking against their orthodoxy that like the OP they can't even imagine what you're hinting at. For example Paul Graham's essay is perfectly respectable, going into details about what specifically you can't say wouldn't be.
The interesting bit is that, the best heretic hunter is the man with doubts of his own.
I think I see what you are saying, in that you see the choice as between being explicit & punished or subtle & ignored-by-orthodox. That may be, but if your position is "I'm trying not to talk to the orthodox" then the intelligent orthodox are totally justified in saying "I have no reason to respect the quality of your ideas if you refuse to communicate them to me."
I totally agree with this point by Graham, and I think it counsels in favor of speaking about taboo-ed subjects. How else is the taboo going to change? And if you reasonably fear punishment, that's an unfortunate fact about your situation, not a proof that to the orthodox that your ideas have quality.
The goal isn't to convince the orthodox to change his position, it's merely to show that the orthodox opinion isn't unanimous.
I don't know why people are downvoting this. You hit the nail on the head with this and your post abou PUA.
EDIT: what the fuck, man?
One hypothesis I have is that there is a sizable population on LW that REALLY doesn't want to talk about the social norms. In meatspace, stuff like how often to talk, how close to stand, and such.
There's a little discussion of the equivalent for online discussion, but mostly phrased in terms of "status," which is not a deep enough concept to capture everything that's going on. I get the feeling that others think something like "My methods of interacting with others are effective, and I'm not interested in other people telling me that my methods makes them uncomfortable." Certainly I've felt that way in the past.
(That said, I'm not sure if that phenomena is why this downvoting is occurring here).
can you elaborate?
I've asserted occasionally that post-modern moral theories (like the worthwhile parts of feminism) are consistent with empiricism. That is, they look at what as happened before and make predictions about will happen in the future.
That is often down-voted. I suspect that this is because taking feminism seriously would require people to re-think their methods of interacting with others, in a way that would be extremely challenging to their personal identities. That way leads to mindkilling (By the transitive property: The personal is political + Politics is the Mindkiller => The personal is the mindkiller).
I would love to see a rational discussion about feminism.
I guess there are many ideas where I should update, but also a lot of BS... and I have trouble separating these two parts, mostly because saying that "there is a lot of BS" means that I am an evil person not worth discussing with. Asking for evidence is a proof that I don't believe everything, which of course means that I am an ignorant evil male. So I would like to participate in a discussion where my comment "I don't think this is enough evidence for X" or "I think there is an alternative explanation" is countered by more evidence, instead of just pointing out that I don't get it, because I am privileged (because somehow the non-privileged person could never be wrong).
Here is a start at what I'd call empirical feminist. I'm not sure what you mean by rational, if you don't mean empirical.
More generally, I rely on feminist thought to say:
From there, I move on to say:
For arguments-are-soldiers reasons, many feminists are particularly provocative in their redefinition of worlds. Also for arguments-are-soldiers reasons, other feminists are reluctant to call them on being provocative. That's a bug, not a rationalist feature.
But notice that redefinition can be quite powerful, like how "queer" has been reclaimed from being a slur to being a positive label. If you weren't a feminist, would you have predicted this was possible? Keep in mind hindsight bias.
Those "unstated assumptions" seem to me like an analogy to individual "compartmentalization". First thought: they should be made explicit. Second thought: maybe they serve some purpose; most likely to prevent public disorder (read: in worst case thousands of people killing each other). Many of them are probably very outdated, so exposing them would just lead to their removing. Some of them may be sensitive, and making them explicit would bring an open conflict.
As an example, I guess many feminists would be very uncomfortable with public discussion of "pick-up arts" (of course unless they could control the whole discussion). Irony is that PUAs are also trying to expose some unstated rules, for the sake of hacking them.
English is not my first language and I don't live in English-speaking environment, so I don't clearly see the changes of emotions associated with this word. But are you sure it is the feelings about the word that have changed, instead of feelings towards the queers themselves?
To compare: If drinking beer is socially unacceptable in some society, and then decades later drinking beer is acceptable (even though most people there don't drink beer), I certainly wouldn't describe it as "reclaiming the word beer". Of course the connotations of word beer would be changed from "something illegal that only strange people drink" to "something people drink", but that would be just a side effect of the real change.
Similarly, there is a lot of effort to invent and popularize gender-neutral pronouns in English, because it is expected to change something, namely to reduce sexism. However, there already are languages that "naturally" contain gender-neutral pronouns, for example Hungarian. So does this theory predict that Hungarians are less sexist than other nations? Can we measure it somehow?
I think the causality is reversed; it's not like "if we use gender-neutral pronouns, we become less sexist" but "if even the suspicion of being sexist becomes socially unacceptable, then people will use gender-neutral pronouns to signal their non-sexism". People use gender-neutral pronouns because they are sensitive about something, not the other way around; though perhaps the use of those pronouns can further increase their sensitivity.
Yes, the "queers" were by no means the first group to reclaim a slur. The Dutch "Beggars" were going it back in the 14th century, see the real life section of this tvtropes page for more examples.
My experience is the exact opposite.
Let me put it this way: If Marxist history were true, that would falsify Foucault. As I understand it, one of the purposes of Foucault's philosophical project was to explain why Marxist history could sometimes say insightful things even if it was wrong.
And I'll say again the post-modern thought is often co-opted by more mainstream thought. What's left behind is not representative of the insight-fulness of post-modern thought.
Unfortunately the result appears less insightful then the original Marxist theory.
This is so true.
Oddly enough, this is probably correct.
False. Perfect anonymity is not very difficult; all you need is a clean computer, some standard tools that you can easily download, and a little time with no one looking over your shoulder.
Modify that to "good enough" and I would agree. If someone was really determined to track you down anonymity is hard.
In any case some of us would have to resort to sock puppets because we've already disclosed the connection between our user names and our IRL names.
I hereby promise that I'll find some way to pay Steven $20 or so if, say, he and I contact each other with fake accounts in a messenger program, using Tor or some other anonymizer, and he finally gives me his vaunted red pill.