= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hyporational comments on Best of Rationality Quotes, 2013 Edition - 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 (44)
What's the reason we have to browbeat him to constrain the discussion to some specific point? To me it's obvious several points could be made and the observation could be a sufficient discussion starter.
Particularly on political issues, a "I observed X. Discuss." has the potential to be a trap. Each of the points I made in the grandparent post can be construed as a political attack- the first on women, the second two on the LW community- and simultaneously attacking everyone because of a lack of clarity is, generally speaking, a conversational and political mistake. It's not obvious which issue to engage with, and engaging with the incorrect issue is dangerous.
What kind of danger are we talking about?
Psychic and social- it'd be difficult for it to be physical! Implying someone is a cryptosexist when they are a feminist, or implying that they are a feminist when they are a cryptosexist, is likely to be a good way to offend them (or make them think poorly of you), and then there are coalition politics to consider.
It's not difficult to deduce what kind of a response to the implication question is a socially acceptable one. I might also have no implication. Even if my implication was benign I wouldn't give you the answer. I don't want to reward coercion or biasing a conversation before it's even started. I don't know why people pretend to expect honest answers to such questioning.
If you expect everyone to be totally biased in the conversation then instead of picking the right soldiers for the battle I would suggest concluding that the topic is simply too political to discuss in a rational manner.
If you browbeat people for making observations on issues that might need fixing you're limiting your options for doing any fixing.
If you are saying that he can figure out whether lying or telling the truth about his implication is socially acceptable, sure.
The real problem is that he already had an implication, but he's using the fact that it's an implication to maintain plausible deniability by not coming out and saying it. Saying it may be socially unacceptable, but that's because making the implication is also socially unacceptable.