Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Thomas comments on Thoughts on civilization collapse - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 04 May 2017 10:41AM

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

Comments (78)

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

Comment author: Thomas 19 May 2017 07:04:38AM 6 points [-]

This is not a good argumentation, at all. "It use to be fine, until I was offended by that".

It was never really fine. At first, the politics were pretty much prohibited as a "mindkiller", this was the rule of the game here. Then the standard PC views became accepted, as a kind of a default. Then some reactionaries put their views on a display and shortly after went away.

Now, the unspoken norm is to not go too far away from the PC platform, again?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 20 May 2017 08:00:49PM *  2 points [-]

It's possible to talk about politics without explicitly invoking Boo lights like 'crimmigrants' and appeals to exaggerated risks like 'may rob/rape/kill you anytime of day or night'. You can have a reasonable discussion of the problems of immigration, but this is not how you do it. Anyone who says this is A-OK argumentation and that calling it out is wrong is basically diametrically opposed to Lesswrong's core concepts.

Basically, you're accusing me of outright lying that I think that argument is quite badly written, and instead being blindly partisan. It was badly written, and I am not. I don't even know WHAT to do about the problems arising from the rapid immigration from the Middle-East into Europe. I certainly don't deny they exist. What I DO know is that talking about it like that does (ETA: not) help us approach the truth of the matter.

Comment author: lmn 20 May 2017 09:57:22PM 4 points [-]

appeals to exaggerated risks like 'may rob/rape/kill you anytime of day or night'.

Except that risk is not in fact exaggerated.

Basically, you're accusing me of outright lying that I think that argument is quite badly written, and instead being blindly partisan.

Here's an idea. If you don't want to be accused of outright lying and being blindly partisan, try not outright lying and not being blindly partisan. Crazy idea, huh?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 20 May 2017 10:21:21PM *  1 point [-]

Your certainty that I am lying and blindly partisan appears to be much stronger than justifiable given the evidence publicly available, and from my point of view where I at least know that I am not lying… well, it makes your oh-so-clever insinuation fall a touch flat. As for being blindly partisan, what gives you the impression that I would tolerate this from the other side?

At the very least, I think this chain has shown that LessWrong is not a left-side echo chamber as Thomas has claimed above.

Except that risk is not in fact exaggerated

If so, the original expression of that risk was presented in such a fashion as to make that claim as non-credible as possible through explicit emotionally enflaming wording.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 May 2017 03:40:32PM 2 points [-]

Now, the unspoken norm is to not go too far away from the PC platform, again?

No.

I'm quite far from the PC platform and I don't have any issues (that penetrate through my very thick skin, anyway :-D).