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.

Old_Gold comments on Is altruistic deception really necessary? Social activism and the free market - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: PhilGoetz 26 February 2016 06:38AM

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

Comments (96)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Old_Gold 27 February 2016 03:41:49AM 2 points [-]

Those movements didn't require wholesale lying and sleight-of-hand, because they could make valid and true one-sided arguments.

Yes they did, in particular the false claim that there are no significant diffrences between blacks and whites.

It's hard to come up with a good counter-argument to "slavery is bad".

Well, "slavery is bad" isn't even an argument it's either an asertion or at best a value judgement. The fact that this wasn't obvious to you is a sign you haven't thought much about the topic.

Even women's suffrage and Prohibition didn't require lying.

Well, consider how the latter turned out. Prohibition involved making false statements (they might not technichally have been lies only because some of the people making them believe them) about how much of the contry's crime was caused by alcohol. Some counties even sold off their jails after prohibition passed, figuring that without alcohol there'd be no crime so there would be no need for it.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 28 February 2016 01:57:14AM *  3 points [-]

Yes they did, in particular the false claim that there are no significant diffrences between blacks and whites.

That's false. The abolition movement never claimed there were no significant differences between blacks and whites. Read the transcripts/summaries of the Lincoln / Douglas debates.

Comment author: Old_Gold 28 February 2016 07:19:29AM 2 points [-]

True, however, the civil rights movement did.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 01 March 2016 07:19:20AM 1 point [-]

Oh. True.

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 28 February 2016 09:49:58AM 0 points [-]

Why the hell was this comment downvoted?

Comment author: gjm 28 February 2016 03:14:26PM 3 points [-]

Because it was a disagreement with Old_Gold, who is the same person as Eugine_Nier and Azathoth123 and VoiceOfRa and TheLion, and who is not in this for the sake of mutually beneficial debate but in order to fight a culture war, and that's what he does.

Comment author: bogus 27 February 2016 07:31:50AM *  3 points [-]

Yes they did, in particular the false claim that there are no significant diffrences between blacks and whites.

Um, this is just plain wrong historically: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, ... and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between [blacks] and white men." --Abraham Lincoln

Prohibition involved making false statements (they might not technichally have been lies only because some of the people making them believe them) about how much of the contry's crime was caused by alcohol.

It's not at all clear that this is the case. Alcohol consumption before Prohibition was quite high, and this was definitely a significant social problem. One could even make the case that Prohibition was in some sense successful; some studies estimate that alcohol consumption after repeal was as much as 20% lower compared to the pre-Prohibition level.