= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DaFranker 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)
I don't know that 'debacle' and there seems to be a lot of content that could be part of it (you meant something in the comments of this same article apparently). If you think it is very relevant, i'd be grateful for one or several specific links to start from.
Where can i find out what "near-type" means here? This appears important enough to postpone my reply to this part.
I didn't mean it in that way. And i think the feminist movement, as a whole or in part, doesn't necessarily want to be lightly told by men what behaviour is or is not "furthering their goals" =P
(This instance seems to me like one in which you did so lightly, because it didn't seem highly relevant / on-topic.)
Near mode, Far mode - In rough vulgarization, Near mode is immediate observation and sensation, Far mode is abstract knowledge of something.
As for that last, yeah. I was merely spelling out my own reasoning. Saying something like that is exactly the kind of behavior I'd expect to cause the kind of reactions / treatment / behavior I've described in earlier posts.
Thanks.
It's good to know that you know that. Your wording here might mildly suggest that you disagree with such reactions to that behaviour on some level, but i might just be imagining that. And either way it's not of much relevance.
Nice catch there.
Yes, I do believe that the reaction is sub-optimal, and that there are better ways to handle these cases that would apparently further their cause faster. However, my model of all this is incomplete, so I'm most likely not entirely right, and I'd probably never voice that opinion outside of a context like this one.
Note that I don't think the reaction is "wrong" or "negative", but ISTM that there are probably other alternatives with similar cost and better utilitarian results.
Your own reaction seems like a good example of a much more productive reaction, but it does have some rather limiting contextual requirements.
Took me until after i'd read it the second or third time, but once it's recognised, it seems fairly intuitive to me that it might have been intended.
I'm not sure i understand which reaction you mean. And my best (only?) guess on the contextual requirements is the context of this conversation on this platform (or: community), but i'm even less certain here, so i would like to ask you to please make both points more explicit.