= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open Thread, May 25 - May 31, 2015 - 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 (301)
Clearly not.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
Imagine there is a society where all kinds of people are saying all kinds of things. S is a subset of all the things that are being said, such that if X is a member of set S, then X is a case "that you yourself would agree have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric that hardened bigots nevertheless continue to spread".
Now, I am only concerned cases X such that X is a member of set S.
Who is that "you yourself"? One particular person? Why should you care about the opinion of one particular person?
And since "bigots continue to spread" it's clear that the not the entire population agrees about X being the member of set S.
In this case, you = Lumifer.
You, Lumifer, think my characterization is accurate for the specific cases that I am referring to.
I am not the arbiter of appropriateness of speech and do not hold myself as such.
Specifically, in the case of personally me, the subset S looks to be empty.
1) S is empty for every society in the world, i.e. bigots are figments of our imagination?
2) Are you a deontologist or a consequentialist?
Your question isn't about the existence of bigots. It's about speech that "have been settled beyond dispute are meaningless cases of inflammatory rhetoric". To repeat myself, you're using terms that signal attitude towards speech, not characteristics of speech itself.
Do try to overcome the typical mind fallacy. Would an Indonesian peasant agree with you about that? A North Korean communist? An islamist from Somalia? Who determines what's "beyond dispute"?
I am a loose consequentialist with the very big proviso that out ability to forecast consequences is limited and falling back on deontology is frequently enough the best way to proceed.
"Your question isn't about the existence of bigots." Yes it is, as you will see if you use the full quotation. Okay, so you accept the existence of bigots. Step two: Do you accept the existence of inflammatory rhetoric being spread by bigots anywhere across spacetime?
"To repeat myself, you're using terms that signal attitude towards speech, not characteristics of speech itself." Honestly, I don't see why I should care.
"Do try to overcome the typical mind fallacy." Not really relevant to what I'm saying.
Care to define what you mean by "bigot" and "inflammatory rhetoric"?
Of course. Just look at what kind of inflammatory rhetoric those anti-British bigots known as the Founding Fathers of the US were spreading!
Is that the judgement of the British, or the judgement of Lumifer?
I'm afraid I'm more of a hardline consequentialist like EY. I often reach the same conclusions as deontologists, but not by following deontological lines of reasoning. Such results emerge from the overlapping consensus reached by multiple consequentialists coordinating with each other which trying to optimize the end results for themselves. Eg. There's a pie that two people want. The first person wants to eat the whole pie, but knows he'll be stabbed by the second if he does. To avoid that unwanted consequence, he sticks to the Schelling point of equal division, etc.
Heh. Clearly the first person is irrational -- he should hurry to precommit to stab the second person unless he gets the whole pie X-D
No he isn't, because the judge will stab anyone who stabs someone without legitimate grievance, and the mob will back the judge.
(Of course, all this is just metaphorical. What he really wants is to share the pie equally. He's negotiating with others to optimize for that outcome.)