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.

philh comments on In praise of gullibility? - Less Wrong Discussion

23 Post author: ahbwramc 18 June 2015 04:52AM

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

Comments (106)

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

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 18 June 2015 11:32:06PM *  3 points [-]

I see a lot of rational sounding arguments from red-pillers, manosphericals, conservatives, reactionaries, libertarians, the ilk. And then I see the counter-arguments from liberals, feminists, leftists and the ilk that pretty much boil down to the other side just being uncompassionate assholes and desperately rationalizing it with arguments. Well, rationalizing is a very universal feature and they sometimes do seem like really selfish people indeed... so I really don't know who to believe.

So one side is giving rational arguments for their position, and the other side is dismissing them with a universal counterargument. Seriously, how is this even a tough call?

Comment author: philh 22 June 2015 11:58:17AM 1 point [-]

It seems like pretty much the same dynamic would occur with paperclip maximizers. Clippy can argue as rationally and correctly as ve likes that terrible thing will increase the quantity of paperclips made, and the counterargument would be "you're an uncompassionate asshole".

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 23 June 2015 01:15:59AM 2 points [-]

No, the counter argument would be "we don't care about paperclips".

Furthermore in the case of the SJW/NRx debate, most of the "terrible things" in question are things that no one had previously considered terrible until the SJW (and their predecessors) started loudly insisting that these things were terrible(tm) and that the only possible reason anyone would disagree was lack of compassion.