Lumifer comments on False Friends and Tone Policing - Less Wrong

45 Post author: palladias 18 June 2014 06:20PM

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

Comments (49)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 June 2014 07:49:08PM 12 points [-]

If every time someone said "conscience objection," this speaker was appending "to enable genocide," the fervor and horror with which he questioned us made a lot more sense, and didn't feel like personal viciousness.

This, of course, is an effective Dark Arts technique for shifting the terms and the atmosphere of the debate.

Comment author: palladias 18 June 2014 08:02:12PM 7 points [-]

Sure, though, in this case (in person conversation, friend I know well), it was clear it was a sincere, heartfelt argument rather than a tactical ploy.

If I'm stuck in arguments where I can't tell if my opponent is sincere, I tend to bow out.

Comment author: ChristianKl 19 June 2014 02:38:14PM 7 points [-]

Something being a heartfelt argument doesn't mean that it's not a choice that someone made. Especially in the social justice movement people do make choices about shunning specific words and developing an emotional attachment.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 July 2014 12:39:04PM 2 points [-]

Sure, though, in this case (in person conversation, friend I know well), it was clear it was a sincere, heartfelt argument rather than a tactical ploy.

Sincere and heartfelt dark arts are the most effective dark arts. In fact, they are most dark arts period. That's more or less the reason social emotions exist.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 June 2014 09:10:01PM 4 points [-]

In cases where it is a heartfelt argument the question becomes whether you can have a rational discussion with a person of such views.

Comment author: palladias 18 June 2014 09:32:44PM 12 points [-]

Working pretty well to date!

Comment author: Lumifer 19 June 2014 03:06:06PM *  9 points [-]

Well, a world where contributing to the campaign for one side of a pretty even referendum (52% vs 48%) is morally equivalent to personally enabling genocide, such a world to me looks very similar to a world where voting against government shutdown is morally equivalent to hanging rich people on the lamp posts and personally shoving their wives and daughters into cattle cars which will take them to gulags.

In either of these words even only a logical and reasonable discussion, never mind a rational one, is pretty much impossible.

Comment author: evand 28 June 2014 10:22:00PM 0 points [-]

I think permitting tactical incentives for my interlocutors to self-modify is a real cost, and worthy of careful consideration.