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.

username2 comments on Open thread, Sep. 26 - Oct. 02, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: MrMind 26 September 2016 07:41AM

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

Comments (90)

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

Comment author: username2 27 September 2016 09:04:33AM 3 points [-]

tonight—and the U.S. POTUS election writ large—is shaping up to be a very consequential world event

Is that actually true? I've lived through many US presidential eras, including multiple ones defined by "change." Nothing of consequence really changed. Why should this be any different? (Rhetorical question, please don't reply as the answer would be off-topic.)

Consider the possibility that if you want to be effective in your life goals (the point of rationality, no?) then you need to do so from a framework outside the bounds of political thought. Advanced rationalists may use political action as a tool, but not for the search of truth as we care about here. Political commentary has little relevance to the work that we do.

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 September 2016 12:22:06PM 2 points [-]

I don't think nothing of consequence changed for the Iraqi's through the election of Bush.

Comment author: username2 30 September 2016 05:37:50AM 0 points [-]

Compare that with Syria under Obama. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

Comment author: Brillyant 27 September 2016 02:53:40PM 0 points [-]

I'd argue U.S. policy is too important and consequential to require elaboration.

"Following politics" can be a waste of time, as it can be as big a reality show circus as the Kardashians. But it seems to me there are productive ways to discuss the election in a rational way. And it seems to me this is a useful way to spend some time and resource.