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.

Eugine_Nier comments on Politics Discussion Thread January 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: OrphanWilde 02 January 2013 03:31AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (334)
Tags: politics thread

Comments (334)

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 January 2013 08:51:34PM 8 points [-]

The joke is more likely to resonate with the audience if it corresponds to their experience.

Nonsense. All it takes is that the audience want to believe it. Experience is not truth; a large part of people's "experience" is their own beliefs. This is just the same death spiral again. If they laugh, that proves I'm right; if they boo, that proves I'm right.

It's necessary to get society to the point where it's possible to make the argument without being declared unfit for polite company.

The argument for what, in the context of the original posting? That in a marriage, the natural and desirable order of things is that man shall be the absolute ruler and woman the slave, and that any other arrangement is a futile struggle against our fundamental biological nature that if pursued will bring only doom and destruction?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 January 2013 04:17:11AM *  3 points [-]

The joke is more likely to resonate with the audience if it corresponds to their experience.

If they laugh, that proves I'm right;

Note the difference in meaning between the two italicized phrases?

if they boo, that proves I'm right.

What did I say that could reasonably be interpreted this way?

(Edit: thinking about it, I think I see how you got that impression: Laughter is evidence that you're right, an extreme negative reaction is weaker evidence that you're onto something. Indifference, or a non-extreme negative reaction is thus evidence that you're wrong.)

That in a marriage, the natural and desirable order of things is that man shall be the absolute ruler and woman the slave, and that any other arrangement is a futile struggle against our fundamental biological nature that if pursued will bring only doom and destruction?

Seriously, could you at least try not to straw-man my position?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 03 January 2013 08:16:46PM 2 points [-]

The joke is more likely to resonate with the audience if it corresponds to their experience.

If they laugh, that proves I'm right;

Note the difference in meaning between the two italicized phrases?

Consider "proves" replaced by "is evidence in favour of". It doesn't change my point.

if they boo, that proves I'm right.

What did I say that could reasonably be interpreted this way?

That's the other half of the pattern -- which you obligingly go on to complete:

Laughter is evidence that you're right, an extreme negative reaction is weaker evidence that you're onto something.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 January 2013 08:31:26PM *  1 point [-]

That's the other half of the pattern -- which you obligingly go on to complete:

Laughter is evidence that you're right, an extreme negative reaction is weaker evidence that you're onto something.

Did you read the sentence I wrote after that one?

Indifference, or a non-extreme negative reaction is thus evidence that you're wrong.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 January 2013 10:21:10AM 1 point [-]

Did you read the sentence I wrote after that one?

Yes. The whole argument's a crock.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit