= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Politics Discussion Thread January 2013 - 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 (334)
Here was my attempt at a brief articulation, early in this conversation. I'm trying not to just reverse engineer from social justice blogging. But if I screwed things up, I'm open to suggestion.
I agree that privilege isn't inherently unjust. It just turns out that certain kinds of privilege are antithetical to my terminal values - and calling out appears to be the best response.
Yes - I suspect this causal story is the reason why my original complaint - that LW is bad at this type of social engineering theory - is true.
Well, I didn't say that (I'm not aware offhand of a plausible instance of the thing the term refers to that doesn't strike me as undesirable/wrong insofar as Jandila's morality function ouputs wrong).
From the bit you linked:
Your wording makes me wince a little but I'm not sure if I can unpack why here (something about the implied model of intellectual discourse). In any case, you are quite correct that a simplistic analysis of the idea is not the best that critical theory has to offer, although LW doesn't have many people in the cluster (it's more than a matter of just reading a couple texts).
Yes, the core problem is that LW lacks this population - and doesn't seem to care.
Maybe it's a relic of fact that most of my contact with "soft" academics is legal academia.
Legal issues go from non-existent to unsettled to settled. Tenure lies in writing only about unsettled. Cutting edge legal theories are a thing, even for practicing lawyers (I've even got one I'm waiting for the right case to test). Then the caselaw thickens - and your theory is now settled practice or Timecube level crazy.
In short, sorry for making you wince. Well, sorta sorry. :)
nod It's pretty synonymous with stuff like the Sokal affair to them.
That does go rather a long way toward explaining it, yeah. I come at it from anthropology and linguistics, with a side order each of biology and semiotics, so my go-to ideas about "the progression of theories and the state of the art in this field" are...substantially harder to capture, but basically it looks a bit like evolution in language or biology with a generous dose of lateral transfer a la art.
A law graduate friend of mean feels compelled to add: "Or both."
No worries, nothing like upsetting.
On a different topic:
Is there any discussion in this literature about whether this cluster of theory necessarily implies an anti-realist metaethical position? My own metaethical theories have mostly been driven by the implications of these types of social theories - but it wouldn't surprise me if my conclusions in that regard were unsophisticated and suspect.