= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Multiheaded comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - 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)
Comments (857)
Dude, let me be honest. I was testing you with those two links. The result was far below my expectations. I'm not going to speak too much about it, looks like Less Wrong has already told you the basics anyway ITT.
I think that your behaviour, while influence-seeking, is unwise to dismiss as that of a "Troll". Moreover, I don't believe you to be outright "evil" (we have plenty of incompatible values, though, but I've first to examine the nature and pattern of these values to see where a clash is inevitable and where a compromise is worth it).
However, I basically support those attacks on you. Everything which consigns ANY group to a higher or lower perch on humanity's imaginary "moral order" on the sole basis of its genes*, however those genes might influence abilities and behavior - especially if it tries to look fair by giving members of a lower group the chance to redeem themselves and be treated like "normals", but the entire burden of proof is upon them, and only the group who demoted their status might make the exception; anyone else, especially a known egalitarian, and it's "white knighting", or "nigger-loving pinko subversive", or "bought by the Jews", etc (which you pulled on Alicorn, whom you would've never brought up as a positive example if you knew her in the exact same way, through the exact same writings, but not as a high-status regular of the community you're targeting; you could only be expected to attack and complain about her then)...
- it all fucking stinks to me. It is vile. There can be no compromise about this particular issue.
And I maintain that if the diverse collection of the highly predictable contrarians who want to spread the gospel of innate genetic differences don't soon change their tune to underscore the importance of equal moral significance for groups in the larger society's eyes - why, then the supposed corrupt and subversive order which steers mainstream discourse would be entirely justified in treating such contrarians as short-sighted, destructive meddlers who are too smart for society's unspoken agreements, and I'll feel obliged to do my part in censuring them, even if I might perceive their factual claims to be more correct than the mainstream view.
*(even sociopaths; I used to dream of governments wising up and treating them like fourth-class citizens, but I changed my mind)
What do you mean by "equal moral significance"? Do you mean equal intrinsic value or equal instrumental value? Because Aurini's position only requires unequal instrumental value.
It also requires him being apriori a better judge of instrumental value than the vast majority of women, and some truly vast good being created that outweighs the ugliness of publicly disrespecting and humiliating any entire gender in such away. Also, he never once even mentioned the dangers of judging moral significance as a caveat.
(To answer your question directly: I maintain that a person's total instrumental value as perceived by others is, especially in social relations, often nearly impossible to detach from intristic value, and an attempt to treat them separately can be very harmful for the subject and society at large. At risk of being downvoted, I'd like to mention once again that left-wing thought has been grappling with this problem since Marx.)
Anyway, would you mind elaborating? What is the precise position under which what's best for women requires treating them like third-class citizens?
Suppose there's a research project to do something important, say cure cancer, build FAI, etc. You will agree that it's best for everyone if it's staffed by the best people, even though it's in some sense "unfair" to the people who will be denied the chance to participate in such a prestigious project because of their genes and/or upbringing.
The same principal applies to other projects where for the same reason it makes sense to assign people based to their comparative advantage. Now you may be asking, "Who decides what someone's comparative advantage is and what about their biases?" Turns out there is a system that does a reasonably good job allocating people base on their comparative advantage and also avoids the problem of having a central judge of people's value. It's called the free market.
How the flying fuck does this have anything to do with publicly expressing disrespect and contempt for a genetically determined group of people, anyway? I agree that the issue of perceived fairness vs. market efficiency isn't clear-cut, but our attitude towards the people who get unlucky must be particularly sensitive.
Would you want Yudkowsky to call anyone who can't work on FAI or get qualified to do so a useless dullard whose only worth to society is donating to SIAI? If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you condemn Aurini's words?
Sorry, I was responding to your question about the difference between instrumental and intrinsic value.
As for Aurini's comment, he's arguing that people (ok in his case women, but I'm generalizing) should be disrespected and treated with contempt when they behave in histrionic or otherwise inappropriate ways, as this will cause them to stop it. Note that if someone is genetically or otherwise predisposed to act in such ways then it's necessary to apply even more pressure for them to stop.
Well, he's more or less done something like that.
Hmm, let's see...
So do you agree with the line above, or not? Do you think that this is a good thing to feel and believe?
What about this style of "argument"? Do you endorse it?
He goes on to talk about "histrionic behaviour" in the next paragraph.
I'd assign it a lower probability then Aurini but probably higher then you.
No, I don't like bulverism.