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.

Manfred comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: Apprentice 06 January 2014 12:16AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (866)

Comments (866)

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

Comment author: Manfred 06 January 2014 06:28:12AM *  25 points [-]

I may be overreacting, but I don't even want to hear or discuss anything from that direction.

[later]

It's threatening to ignore, ostracize, or attack those who disagree with their sacred cows. That's an unconscionably bad habit to allow oneself.

throws hand in air

You'd think if we were such hot stuff at dispassionately debating things, we could handle outgroup criticism like this without either ignoring opposing views or devolving into tribal politics. But as Tarski would say, "if we can't, I want to believe we can't," and I admit I'd rather not discuss this sort of thing than always discuss this sort of thing.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 January 2014 03:05:38AM 18 points [-]

To maximize open discourse, you have to close down discourse against open discourse.

It's just Marcuse's paradox (which I'm pretty sure I'm coining here): to maximize tolerance, you have to be intolerant toward intolerance. Or in the legal arena: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

There are two arguments in that post: "certain elements within the rationality thing signal more than is necessary", the correction of which would aid the goal of generating high-quality open discourse, and "certain conclusions should not even be considered, certain arguments should not be made, no matter their strength, because certain people have memetic immune reactions to them that drive them away from participating at all", the correction of which would mean an end to open discourse. Given that ThrustVectoring (presumably) values open discourse, the response of "I don't even want to discuss anything from that direction" is exactly correct.

That doesn't mean that it can't be discussed, of course; it just means that a community that values open discourse can't discuss it. If apophemi wants there to be a community based around limited rationality -- that is, rationality-minus-discourse-about-certain-things -- well, one can always be started. Secession is always an option, and online, you don't even have to figure out how to build a seastead to secede.

Comment author: CronoDAS 08 January 2014 04:41:09AM 7 points [-]

"the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Humorous, off-topic response: But the Declaration of Independence is!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Comment author: Vulture 07 January 2014 03:33:43AM 0 points [-]

Or in the legal arena: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Completely tangentially, what does this mean?

Comment author: Lumifer 07 January 2014 04:09:02AM 9 points [-]

what does this mean?

In theory it means that it's better to NOT follow the (established / agreed-to) rules when it clearly leads to major negative consequences.

In practice it usually means "We really want to do this and we're not going to have mere laws stand in our way".

Comment author: Vulture 07 January 2014 04:47:50AM 0 points [-]

Got it, thanks. It's a nice pithy way of phrasing it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit