Cameron_Taylor comments on Wanting to Want - Less Wrong

16 Post author: Alicorn 16 May 2009 03:08AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (185)

Comments (185)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment deleted 19 May 2009 07:49:29AM *  [-]
Comment author: Alicorn 19 May 2009 02:33:45PM 1 point [-]

I'm sure you thought this would be cute or funny or something, but the objections aren't commensurate. I wasn't making a sweeping statement about the alertness-giving properties of Mountain Dew. Trying to do that would have been beside the point, since I was giving an individual example about my own beverage-related limitations, and living where I live, a Mountain Dew that might materialize in my home would have plenty of caffeine. To compare, I wouldn't have blinked if Psychohistorian had phrased the original remark about women as "I'll still find women alluring", making it about himself instead of about women.

Alternatively, I could just protest that in my idiolect, Mountain Dew refers to a beverage that contains caffeine, and your wacky foreign Mountain Dew is not Mountain Dew at all.

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 19 May 2009 09:46:56AM *  0 points [-]

Surely substituting 'Coke' or 'Pepsi' would make the Australians and Canadians among us feel more welcome.

This actually loses something in context, though--Mt. Dew (in the USA) has a somewhat higher caffeine content than those (about 20% more, I think), and also has a reputation as something people drink primarily for the caffeine content, not the flavor.

A better example might be "energy drinks" like Red Bull, which are typically dense, syrupy carbonated beverages with twice the caffeine content of a cola, but I'm not sure how common those are in other areas.

EDIT: This comment was written on the premise that the parent was a genuine request for greater acknowledgement of LW readers not in the USA, not a disingenuous attempt to make an off-topic point about something completely unrelated to this post. Disregard this comment as appropriate.

Comment deleted 20 May 2009 12:43:20PM [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 20 May 2009 07:34:51PM 1 point [-]

The grandparent was a genuine request. The sincerity of the disingenuous EDIT in the reply I have ironic doubts about.

I reevaluated the comment after seeing the downvotes it received and based on the apparent attempt to score a point in a discussion on a different post. If you were being genuine then okay, I accept your word on the matter and retract the edit with my apologies.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 20 May 2009 03:32:29AM *  1 point [-]

There's a big difference between parochialism that is, at worst, confusing, and parochialism that makes some people feel ignored or excluded (even if they aren't being ignored or excluded).

Comment deleted 20 May 2009 05:35:06AM *  [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 20 May 2009 09:49:50AM 2 points [-]

politically correct

You realize that this is an anti-applause light that conveys little informational value, right?

The actual argument is that since women comprise half the population and are severely underrepresented on LW as it is, if phrasing that implies the audience is uniformly male makes women feel excluded it is detrimental to the goal of spreading rationality. Do you actually have an argument against this?

Please note that "women won't actually feel excluded" is demonstrably false.

Comment deleted 20 May 2009 12:24:45PM *  [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 20 May 2009 07:40:16PM 2 points [-]

No. It adequately serves as a descriptive reference to the social dynamics involved in determining what is Right, moral, acceptable enlightened or otherwise good. If you can suggest a substitute phrase then I would happily adopt it. Arguments along the lines of 'something to do with political correct therefore something bad about the other side' are common. It is to be expected that some will assume a similar error of reasoning is being applied whenever the phrase is being used no matter the actual content and I would prefer to have a phrase that avoided this hassle.

The phrase you're looking for is probably "socially acceptable" or "social norm". The phrase "politically correct" is primarily used as a connotationally-loaded derogatory for social norms the speaker disagrees with, and to signal, in a beliefs-as-attire manner, group membership with certain political positions. If you want to criticize social norms, which I agree is a rewarding and enjoyable hobby, you would do better to name the specific norms you take issue with, rather than using a catch-all term for norms you dislike.

For instance: Which claims of exclusion are not acceptable to raise that you think ought to be? Why? What norms would you prefer?

I reject posts and certain of the normative demands contained therein on their own merit as I see it.

Okay. Which specific normative demands are you rejecting?

It is reasonable to desire an inclusive environment independently of the influence this improved environment may have on the spread of rationality. I for one accept inclusiveness a terminal value while 'spreading rationality' is not a goal of mine at all.

So you accept inclusiveness as valuable, but disagree with explanations given by individuals who felt excluded for why they felt that way, and feel that others are neglecting the spirit of mutual understanding across a cultural barrier? I'm not sure I follow.

Comment deleted 21 May 2009 12:54:42AM *  [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 21 May 2009 09:35:34AM *  1 point [-]

Do not presume so much.

Then I confess I am at a loss as to what your point in all this was, as you seem to have stated is a rejection of something that other people said without any real explanation as to what you're rejecting, or why.

Comment deleted 24 June 2009 01:36:42AM [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 24 June 2009 02:14:13AM *  6 points [-]

I don't normally remark on such things, but I'm a bit discouraged to note the following:

  • The parent comment was the first time Cameron_Taylor has posted anything in roughly a month, in a long-dead argument in which he and I were disagreeing.
  • At roughly the same time the parent comment was posted, roughly the last 80 or so posts I've made were all voted down, consecutively, once each, for no discernable reason.
  • I recall at least two other commenters mentioning being voted down suddenly on multiple unrelated comments previously while arguing with Cameron_Taylor.

Karma is easy-come, easy-go, but I'm thinking that someone is not exactly participating in good faith here.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit