= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - 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 (1742)
Being mindkilled and claiming otherwise is a lie.
How does that expanded definition of lie square with what you said about guilt-tripping elsewhere in the thread?
Edit: I should mention I somewhat agree with your use of the word lie, for reasons similar to those discussed here, and disagree with your position on guilt tripping.
Which position on guilt-tripping do you mean? :)
I was not careful with my words and thus articulated several distinct positions. The most accurate articulation is that I think we are responsible for society's actions with which we have a causal relation. By contrast, convention morality asserts that we are responsible only for things that we proximately cause.
Separately, I assert that our social actions cause the social norms of a society. And most of our actions are social actions. EDIT: Thus, we are responsible for any harms caused by society's social norms.
I don't under what any of that has to do with my post at issue, which is about my division between (a) delusional actors for whom responsibility is a useless concept for outsiders to use (not guilty by reason of insanity), and (b) those who are maliciously irrational.
People who are mindkilled generally don't realize it.
Generally, yes. But it is possible to be poor at updating on the evidence related to a proposition P, but realize the fact "TimS is poor at updating related to P." It's not common, but it does happen.*
Don't we aspire to be the Lens that Sees Its Flaws.
I agree, I also think this applies to a lot more situations than just this case.
Given what we've said before in this particular conversation, I don't understand what you are saying here.
Guilt tripping does work, and can be an effective method of changing people's behavior.
Personal relationships, maybe - although the outside view of guilt-tripping is the more dominant person in some interpersonal relationship initiating and winning a status conflict.
For those reasons, guilt-tripping is seldom effective at creating social change. From your perspective, social change is the change in relative dominance of various groups. Why would behaving as if one is already dominant be expected to work?
By contrast, I think social change is more effective if it seeks to change the definitions of different groups.
BTW, do you have a sense of why my question got downvoted?
Because people don't magically know which group is dominant and thus which group they should conform to.
By acting like they're more dominant than they actually are, groups can convince more people that they really are that dominant and cause the people to conform to the group's wishes; which is to say the group thus becomes more dominant. Sort of like the expression "fake it till you make it".
No idea. I didn't downvote it.
I thought you were one of the people who objected to over-reliance on status-based explanations.
Seriously, in some cases it's even useful to guilt-trip yourself. That's the principal behind things like heroic responsibility.