= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Is altruistic deception really necessary? Social activism and the free market - 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 (96)
You're sidestepping my question, which is whether an ideology or an action issue that requires the Dark Side is considerably more likely to be wrong than one that doesn't.
I wasn't really sidestepping, I was just dancing my own jig a bit in the direction of an answer. I think I lost my train of thought, and just ended.
For your question, I think most of my jig was relevant. If we're talking about political power, given the tribal nature of the competition, and the realities of democracy, and population IQ variation within populations, and the political culture of significant dishonesty, then it seems to me that most any political cause requires the Dark Side, so needing the Dark Side is not particularly predictive of a bad argument.
The need of the Dark Side does not come from the particulars of the argument, but from the context in which the associated political power is decided.