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.

Douglas_Knight comments on If you can see the box, you can open the box - Less Wrong Discussion

49 Post author: ThePrussian 26 February 2015 10:36AM

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

Comments (108)

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

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 26 February 2015 08:12:44PM *  3 points [-]

There is no ambiguity of language because bin Laden largely doesn't use the word "freedom." He objects to specific practices, that is, he objects to Freedom₁. There is one passage (below) where he does draw attention to the tension between the two notions. There is a cruder distinction that the post confuses, between "freedom to" and "freedom from"; but the only time it uses "freedom from" it is in the mouth of the Nazi. I think that makes it a poor example, but the rest of the post is consistent.

You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 27 February 2015 09:17:50AM *  3 points [-]

I feel the last part is merely using his audience's applause lights ("liberation of women") against them. If bin Laden's enemies wouldn't care about liberation of women, bin Laden wouldn't bother talking about how their actions oppose the "deeper meaning" of liberation of women, because bin Laden honestly doesn't care.

Analogically to how people on the other side spread rumors that when bin Laden was killed, there was a porn at his appartment. We honestly don't care about some guy looking at porn, we just say it because we know that for our audience it is an issue.

In the future, if we will fight against an army of alien paperclip maximizers, we will try to tell them emotional stories about how their corrupt leaders actually secretly destroy dozens of paperclips. The best speakers will manage to have tears in their eyes while speaking about how the missing paperclips made the world a worse place.

(To avoid misunderstanding, I believe that some women do enjoy the situation of being told what to do. If the culture tells them this is the right thing to do, there is probably a higher fraction of such women in such culture. And bin Laden may sincerely believe that this is how women should be. It's just Orwellian language to call this a "liberation of women". It would be fair to say "boo liberation, yay submission!", but it is manipulative to say "submission is the true liberation".)

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 28 February 2015 05:37:21PM 0 points [-]

It seems very odd to me that you respond to my comment with this comment. If you don't think bin Laden means what he says, isn't that a general point that should be a top-level response to the post? Shouldn't this be a response to the Prussian talking about the word "freedom" at all, rather than deep in this thread about "freedom" vs "liberation"?

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 28 February 2015 08:55:53PM 0 points [-]

It seems to me that "liberation of women" is more specific than "freedom". But maybe you are right.

Comment author: Salemicus 27 February 2015 09:09:11AM 0 points [-]

I wasn't referring to any ambiguity in bin Laden, who I agree is clear. Rather, I was referring to the post. I don't think it makes sense to interpret the quote you give above as "they hate our freedom."