= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 22, chapter 93 - 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 (354)
You are a writer. You've written a story which you believe instantiates concept P; you're aware of a related concept Q, which is considered harmful, but you believe you're avoiding it. On publication, an unexpectedly large group of people get upset over your plot because by their lights it's indeed an example of concept Q, despite your precautions. Isn't this evidence for expanding your definition of Q to include portions of P, at least for the purpose of avoiding pissed-off fans? I've been thinking of this as pretty basic Human's Guide to Words stuff.
It is also (similarly weak) evidence that it may be useful to update Z, the set of desired fans, such that it excludes those who execute behaviour Y. The act of using social-political attacks to attempt to modify your author-tract from one evangelising a rationality ideology to one evangelising some other ideology isn't one that must necessarily respond to with compliance.
Or respond to at all, when any kind of response will further elevate the perceived importance of the issue, especially when attention to the topic is further incentivized by the author through him discouraging the reading of his response. Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. Alas, there seems to be something about "PR-savvy" which bars general competency from seeping through to it. Score one for the mindkillers.
This presumes that the complaints and concerns in question are asking for something like "Harry Potter and the Methods of Feminism." Having concerns about something is not the same as wanting to turn it into a feminist tract.