OrphanWilde comments on Can we dodge the mindkiller? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: NancyLebovitz 14 June 2013 12:25PM

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

Comments (103)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 14 June 2013 03:06:45PM -2 points [-]

I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?

The loudest voices on the Internet aren't necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.

Comment author: shminux 14 June 2013 03:21:03PM *  1 point [-]

I know Democrats whose sole intersectionality with Democrat politics is gay marriage; they have, for purposes of political -isms, exactly one political belief. That is too many?

Do you mean the single-issue voters who say "I'm a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian economic policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders"?

The loudest voices on the Internet aren't necessarily the best representatives of the groups they claim to represent.

I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?

Comment author: OrphanWilde 14 June 2013 03:26:41PM 0 points [-]

Do you mean single-issue voters who say "I'm a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage, even though I support these mostly GOP or Libertarian policies, but they are not nearly as important to me as equal rights for all genders"?

  • No. I mean single-issue voters who say "I'm a Democrat because I am pro-gay marriage." The "Even though" doesn't even need to enter into it.

I have trouble understanding how this is related to the whole discussion. Are you replying to some implicit argument?

  • I'm commenting on an implicit fact which may have a bearing on the argument. The loudest members of political groups tend to be those who believe in the political group itself, rather than its specific goals. (Which we should expect; somebody engaging in political signaling isn't likely to do so quietly, as that defeats a large part of the signaling to begin with.)
Comment author: RowanE 14 June 2013 03:20:12PM 0 points [-]

That doesn't sound like they identify as Democrats as a specific political -ism at all.

If they're registered to vote democrat mainly because of their position on gay marriage, and I'm guessing also a negative opinion of the Republican party, and describe themselves as Democrats if asked about their political views because it's a convenient answer, that's not really the same thing.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 14 June 2013 03:23:07PM 1 point [-]

Is that a No-True-Scottsman argument or is there something subtle I'm missing there?

Comment author: RowanE 14 June 2013 04:21:43PM 0 points [-]

I don't think it's a no true scotsman thing, although as I was writing the comment I did worry that I was veering into that territory.

How one defines a Democrat varies, and only some ways of defining it make sense with the sort of Democrats you describe, and I don't think the overlap of "Democrats" and "people who identify with a specific political -ism" contains those. This will vary a bit depending on how one is interpreting "identify with a specific political -ism". I think this is where the disagreement lies.

Comment author: ChristianKl 21 June 2013 11:45:02AM *  0 points [-]

You confuse party affilation with political beliefs. It's a mistake that comes from living in a two party state and having a media that tries to convince everyone that red and blue are the two political beliefs that one can have.

It's very worthile to have a mental concept of political beliefs that goes beyond party affilation.

George Orwell would say that the media tainted the language in a way that makes it impossible to analyse political beliefs in your vocabulary.