= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dahlen comments on What topics are appropriate for LessWrong? - 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 (107)
Perhaps the grandparent edit solves a few misunderstandings. Also, I would have understood your point better if you had said "graphic depictions of violence" instead of "violence", for instance. If they had been phrased like forum rules. I thought you meant all instances thereof.
Me, I haven't depicted a thing. For one, LW doesn't actually follow those norms in their strict form (no object-level or meta-level discussions of those topics). My claim was about a hypothetical community that does. For another, I meant people who either need to be sheltered from the nastier aspects of the world, or are psychologically incapable of deviating from rigid, literal, uncreative, mechanistic thinking. Substitute Spock, automatons, whatever.
It's not the sort of thing that gets better with lack of exposure.
You referred to "significantly less rationality than the average person, perhaps somewhere between children and autists". In what possible world is that not depicting autistic people as having "significantly less rationality than the average person"?
(Treating "autists" as interchangeable with "Spock, automatons, whatever" is also pretty obnoxious, though it's not exactly a matter of depicting anyone in any particular way.)
Look, I'm sorry if you found that obnoxious, but I'd rather not stress this point further. As far as I'm concerned it's marginal to the discussion. Besides, I really should have gone to sleep some two hours ago. Can you just confirm whether you understood my point (not agreement or disagreement, just understanding), and leave it at that?
Oh yes, I understood your point. I just disagree with it and disapprove of how you stated it :-).
I didn't originally say "graphic depictions of violence" because I didn't mean to be that exact. There are different degrees between very literal and very abstract. I have no idea where that line lies; I'm only certain graphic depictions of violence crosses it.
If I may phrase this as a retort...
There are different degrees of precision between "covers 1% of possible cases" and "covers 100% of possible cases". Unless the audience is children 5 and under (here's that thing about thresholds again), "violence" is much too general.