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.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread, Jun. 1 - Jun. 7, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 01 June 2015 12:45AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (203)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (203)

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

Comment author: wadavis 05 June 2015 01:20:05PM 3 points [-]

This Video Will Make You Angry by CGP Grey discusses the meme-ic virility of controversial arguments.

A few different sources have also discussed the idea that we are out of the Age of Information, and into the Age of Attention, and that attention is the currency of the day.

Now, has anyone found these ideas combined in a short online text or video to present the idea that: If you find an idea to be ideologically offensive, the best way to fight it is to not engage it in argument but to starve it of attention and let the cat photo and inspirational quote weeds of social media grow over what ever fertile soil it may have found.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 June 2015 02:53:15PM 4 points [-]

If you find an idea to be ideologically offensive

...then you should consider disengaging the concepts of "idea" and "offensive".

the best way to fight it is to not engage it in argument but to starve it of attention

That depends. Some ideas will wither and die, but some will spread like weeds without opposition. I don't know how to decide ex ante what will happen to an idea ignored.

Comment author: gjm 05 June 2015 04:25:37PM -1 points [-]

then you should consider disengaging the concepts of "idea" and "offensive".

I dunno. I think it's pretty reasonable to consider ideas like these offensive:

  • "We should just kill all the Jews."
  • "People with black hair are less than human and we needn't care about hurting them."
  • "If your net worth is less than $10M, who cares what you want?"
  • "Everyone should have to affirm that everything in the Bible is 100% literal truth, or be executed."

What's actually offensive is endorsing these ideas, not their mere existence, but I'm pretty sure that's the kind of offensiveness wadavis has in mind.

(Perhaps there are better responses than offence to someone who seriously endorses this sort of thing. If so, I bet it's because getting offended at all is unhelpful, not because getting offended at ideas is specially unhelpful.)

Comment author: Lumifer 05 June 2015 05:01:24PM 1 point [-]

'm pretty sure that's the kind of offensiveness wadavis has in mind

I don't know -- if "endorsing" is the problem, then the target of your starve-of-attention campaign should be the person (people, organizations, etc.) who had endorsed, not the idea itself. But my impression was that wadavis was talking about ignoring ideas.

because getting offended at all is unhelpful, not because getting offended at ideas is specially unhelpful

Well, both :-)

Comment author: gjm 05 June 2015 08:26:08PM 1 point [-]

if "endorsing" is the problem, then the target of your starve-of-attention campaign should be the person [...] But my impression was that wadavis was talking about ignoring ideas.

If the problem is that people endorse the idea then starving the idea of attention might be a reasonable approach. The aim would be to reduce the number of other people getting persuaded to endorse the idea, rather than to change the minds (or destroy the credibility) of the people already persuaded.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit