= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
VoiceOfRa comments on The horrifying importance of domain knowledge - 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 (236)
So do you have a calculation why laughing at someone for dressing in a funny way lowers total utility?
The simple answer is because it's not rude. While the choice of clothing in question was funny.
I agree. I don't think this applies to the current example. For example, the "humorless corporate drone" type of employee is widely disliked.
Only in the rather hazy sense in which I do for most other ethical questions. It goes something like this: if X wears a dress and Y laughs at X for it, X gets to feel insulted, belittled and maybe threatened, Y gets the satisfaction of laughing at someone they find risible, and anyone else around maybe gets encouraged to think ill of either X or Y. X's utility loss here looks a lot bigger than Y's utility gain. (From, e.g., my experiences of laughing at other people and being laughed at, and what I've heard of other people's.)
That seems obviously wrong. Maybe we just have a big disagreement as to values, but I'm wondering whether we mean different things by "rude" or are envisaging different scenarios?
The mere fact of not laughing at someone wearing a dress doesn't make a person a humorless corporate drone
That's a universal argument against all humor.
True, however, it goes a good way in that direction and applying your logic consistently certainly would.
It most certainly isn't a universal argument against all humour. It's an argument against laughing at people (in case it isn't clear, btw, what's mostly in view here is laughing at people in their presence) but that's very far from being all humour.
I cannot recall a single instance in which I, or anyone else known to me, formed a bad opinion of a corporate representative because they didn't laugh at someone else. Still less, of course, specifically because they didn't laugh at someone for wearing a dress.
Well look at the effect of the campus PC on campus comedy.
Can you recall all the exact reasons for your exact opinion level about any corporate representative, or anyone for that matter? Or, as seems likely, is that statement pure bullshit in Frankfut's sense?
So you've completely changed the subject: originally you claimed that "we should generally not laugh at other people in their presence because they'll dislike it more than we like it" is a universal argument against all humour, and now you're saying that "campus PC" has made some comedians not want to perform at universities.
Nope. But I can, e.g., be pretty confident that my opinions about corporate representatives were never the result of thinking they were secretly alien lizard-men. And that I never thought ill of a corporate representative because they were too intelligent. Because those would be really weird reasons, and I would expect to remember having them.
Nope. I don't do that. Your consistent disinclination to answer requests for clarification and evidence makes me wonder, though, whether perhaps you might be projecting a little when you ask me that question.