= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mystreba comments on When None Dare Urge Restraint - 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 (118)
Labels such as "freedom" and "enemy" are relative. Attributes such as "cowardice" and "courage" are likewise relative. If soldiers from "our side", fighting for "our cause", sacrificed themselves on suicide missions that inflicted serious harm to the "enemy", all in the name of our "freedom", we'd call them courageous. The "enemy" would call them cowards.
Were the 9/11 attackers cowards? Were they brave patriots? Such labels, formed in the biased eye of the observer, are meaningless.
I respond to my original comment, at the risk of appearing to talk to myself. In looking at replies to my comment, some portion of a conversation appears to be missing - talking to myself seemed the best way to jump back in.
I stand corrected. These words do, of course, have meaning. However, I believe they are more meaningful in terms of describing the speaker. RU uses the term "coward" to describe the 9/11 attackers - this tells me a great deal about RU, but very little about the attackers.
This is now my second comment - don't hold back.
Incidentally, as I forgot earlier: Welcome to LessWrong! Feel free to post an introduction of yourself! "What Do We Mean By Rationality" is interesting if you haven't read any of the other posts on the blog.
Regarding your comment: I think your point is fairly accurate in a lot of circumstances - there was something else Eliezer Yudkowsky posted, "Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided", which I think made a related point.