= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Desrtopa comments on Improving My Writing Style - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (33)
Feel free, but it is not arbitrary as I understand the word, because justifications are attached: generally speaking passive voice is dull to read, and passive voice obscures reality.
It does say more. The content of the link is actually explained, clarifying things for people who don't like to follow links (perhaps because they tend to end up with millions of tabs and hours wasted) and saving time and mental energy for the rest. The mention of "metaphysics of metaethics" is just thrown out there in the original - this might be sort of OK for a purely Lesswrongian audience, but it's confusing to readers who aren't able easily to guess the author's opinion on metaphysical arguments*.
Although less problematic, I'm not keen on "rather shocking" or the use of the word dissent. "Dissent" implies that consequentialism is dogma, and "rather shocking" is a borderline oxymoron; the word "shocked" suggests to me a necessarily extreme emotion or state of mind.
*OK I did say "needless to say". But that's really just a bunch of syllables, the kind one includes to (hopefully) improve the rhythm of a sentence.
Passive voice is not necessarily any more obscure than active. You convey the same information with the statement "Z has been Yed by X" as with the statement "X Yed Z." As it happens, this is the argument that Jonathan_Graehl used when I advocated revising to use active voice. If you carry the assumption that passive voice is vague or obscure, it can lead you to simply not notice passive constructions that are precise.