bogus comments on Open thread, July 16-22, 2013 - Less Wrong

13 Post author: David_Gerard 15 July 2013 08:13PM

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

Comments (297)

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

Comment author: bogus 19 July 2013 06:55:39PM *  1 point [-]

Isn't a similar dynamic involved anywhere where people are developing an idea that offensively contradicts the belief of a majority?

This looks like begging the question to me. Whether an idea offensively contradicts mainstream beliefs has a lot to do with the connotations that happen to be associated with it. Lots of reasonably popular ideas contradict mainstream beliefs, but are not especially offensive. Obviously, once an idea becomes popular enough to be part of the mainstream, this whole distinction no longer makes sense.

We could similarly ask why are some atheists so agressive, and whether it wouldn't be better for others to avoid using the "atheist" label to avoid the association with these people ...

Indeed, this explains why many non-theistic people steadfastly refuse to self-identify as atheists (some of them may call themselves agnostics or non-believers). It also partially explains why the movements "Atheism Plus" and "Atheism 2.0" have started gaining currency.

Similarly, any useful and non-offensive content of "red pill" beliefs may be easily found and developed under other labels, such as "seduction community", "game"/"PUA", "ev psych" and the like.

Therefore the most famous writers of non-mainstream opinions will be the shocking ones.

It's not clear why we should care whether a writer of non-mainstream opinions is famous especially when such fame correlates poorly with truth-seeking and/or the opinions are gratuitously made socially unpopular for the sake of "controversy".

There are words which have both positive and negative connotations to different people.

Serious question, name a positive connotation of "The Red Pill" - which is not shared by "Game"/"PUA"/"seduction community" or "ev psych".

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 19 July 2013 08:42:47PM *  2 points [-]

I agree with your explanation about some people's preference for the label "agnostic". The "atheism plus" on the other hand feels to me like "atheism plus political correctness" -- it is certainly not focused on not offending religious people. (So an equivalent would be a Game blog who cares about not offending... for example Muslims. That's not the same as a Game blog trying not to offend feminists.)

Serious question, name a positive connotation of "The Red Pill" - which is not shared by "Game"/"PUA"/"seduction community" or "ev psych".

Anyone who liked the movie Matrix? (Unless all of them are already in the seduction community.) I could imagine to use the same word as a metaphor for... for example early retirement, or any similar activity that requires you to go against the stereotypical beliefs of most people. I admit I never saw the word used in this context; I just feel like it would fit there perfectly. (Also it would fit perfectly to most conspiracy theories.)

Comment author: pragmatist 24 July 2013 12:29:14PM *  0 points [-]

The "atheism plus" on the other hand feels to me like "atheism plus political correctness" -- it is certainly not focused on not offending religious people.

I don't have that much knowledge of the Atheism Plus movement, but I have read some stuff that suggests they are concerned about how prominent atheists talk about Islam, at least. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if they had expressed opposition to Dawkins' description of religious upbringing as child abuse. I do know some feminists who were/are pissed about that.