You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Will_Newsome comments on [Link] Why don't people like markets? - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: GLaDOS 20 June 2012 10:15AM

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

Comments (67)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 21 June 2012 11:10:01AM *  3 points [-]

Biology, sociology, sexuality, and religion are near-completely dominated by political thinking, especially religion which is basically the same thing as politics. (E.g., I have serious doubts about the standard Darwinian account of complex adaptations, but I can't talk about those doubts for the same reasons I can't talk about my opinions on climate science.) Given what I've seen of your comments I'd have thought this would be obvious to you. LessWrong doesn't seem to recognize it. I don't care whether anti-politics norms are praised or demonized, but I do wish they were applied reflectively and consistently in any case.

Comment author: GLaDOS 21 June 2012 03:16:23PM 3 points [-]

Yeah I guess you are right. At the end of the day I just want talking about markets to be OK on LessWrong.

Sorry. (^_^)

Comment author: Hill_Twosome 21 June 2012 01:27:05PM 0 points [-]

The problem, one thinks, occasionally, in the abstract of Far mode, is that some kinds of politics tend to drag our identities into them, such that if we were wrong about something, then we were the wrong person, and that is absolutely unacceptable. This does not seem to actually happen with biology or sociology so much. So I guess the REAL policy is against one of discussing politics you identify with?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 21 June 2012 01:19:00PM 1 point [-]

I do wish they were applied reflectively and consistently in any case.

Sure, me too.
While I'm at it, I have other implausible wishes I'd love to have granted.

In the meantime, I generally assume that whenever an organization has a "let's not talk about X because that always leads to unproductive/unpleasant discussions" norm (which is usually), there's a space of privileged positions about X implicit in the resulting conversations which cannot be challenged.