Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 20 May 2017 11:25:08PM 2 points [-]

So, how do you characterize 'Merkelterrorists' and 'crimmigrants'? Terms of reasonable discourse?

Comment author: lmn 21 May 2017 02:21:56AM 3 points [-]

And you think your concern trolling is contributing to reasonable discourse?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 20 May 2017 08:00:49PM *  1 point [-]

It's possible to talk about politics without explicitly invoking Boo lights like 'crimmigrants' and appeals to exaggerated risks like 'may rob/rape/kill you anytime of day or night'. You can have a reasonable discussion of the problems of immigration, but this is not how you do it. Anyone who says this is A-OK argumentation and that calling it out is wrong is basically diametrically opposed to Lesswrong's core concepts.

Basically, you're accusing me of outright lying that I think that argument is quite badly written, and instead being blindly partisan. It was badly written, and I am not. I don't even know WHAT to do about the problems arising from the rapid immigration from the Middle-East into Europe. I certainly don't deny they exist. What I DO know is that talking about it like that does (ETA: not) help us approach the truth of the matter.

Comment author: lmn 20 May 2017 09:57:22PM 4 points [-]

appeals to exaggerated risks like 'may rob/rape/kill you anytime of day or night'.

Except that risk is not in fact exaggerated.

Basically, you're accusing me of outright lying that I think that argument is quite badly written, and instead being blindly partisan.

Here's an idea. If you don't want to be accused of outright lying and being blindly partisan, try not outright lying and not being blindly partisan. Crazy idea, huh?

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 19 May 2017 09:21:08AM 1 point [-]

So basically you're conceding I'm right, but still want to call bullshit on it.

If by "some" you literally meant nothing but "more than zero", fine. (But "some" people get harsh sentences for pretty much anything, so "some people get harsh sentences for X" is not very informative about how little X is tolerated.)

But usually "somebody who does X undergoes Y" is used to imply something like "if you do X you'll most likely undergo Y", which in this case is very far from being the case. (I just have to spend some time on Facebook to see dozens of western Europeans saying mean things about migrants and AFAIK hardly any of them have ever gotten any sentence.) So I'm getting the impression that you were using the literal meaning as the motte and the colloquial meaning as the bailey.

Comment author: lmn 20 May 2017 02:19:50AM 4 points [-]

If by "some" you literally meant nothing but "more than zero", fine. (But "some" people get harsh sentences for pretty much anything, so "some people get harsh sentences for X" is not very informative about how little X is tolerated.)

So you consider harsh sentences for pointing out true facts about migrant behavior to be reasonable as long as it only happens to "some" people? You may want to learn about how chilling effects on free speech work.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 May 2017 04:05:35PM 1 point [-]

basically you're conceding I'm right

LOL. You wish. Work on your reading comprehension, maybe?

so far they aren't experiencing a huge increase rape and general crime

Being extinct is a very peaceful state.

Comment author: lmn 16 May 2017 10:40:46PM 4 points [-]

in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence

Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.

basically you're conceding I'm right

LOL. You wish. Work on your reading comprehension, maybe?

If what I said about people getting harsher sentences for saying mean things about migrants than migrants engaging in rape was really "bullshit", you wouldn't have to engage in accusations of "cherry-picking" to pre-dissmiss any evidence. As if there is any reason for any sentence for saying mean things about migrants to be worse than the sentence for rape.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 May 2017 01:41:08AM *  1 point [-]

they are in fact robbing, killing, and raping people

Just like the the natives :-/

in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence

Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.

Why not? Because he said something false?

That too, but mostly because the content of this rant was "I don't like immigrants" and that was basically it. Adding a lot of emotionally coloured words just makes it look like a temper tantrum.

It is possible to rationally discuss the issue of immigration in Western Europe -- basically, the Europeans are not breeding (TFR is way under 2.0 in most countries) and more warm bodies do help with the economy. But the IQ and cultural issues are a big deal. The problem is complicated and crimmigrant rants do not help.

Japan is leading the way on the "we don't reproduce and no immigrants are allowed" path. Wait a bit and things will become clearer.

Comment author: lmn 16 May 2017 07:55:32AM 4 points [-]

they are in fact robbing, killing, and raping people

Just like the the natives :-/

There is a significant qualitative difference in amount here.

in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence

Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.

So basically you're conceding I'm right, but still want to call bullshit on it. Sounds like a classic sign of cognitive dissonance.

Japan is leading the way on the "we don't reproduce and no immigrants are allowed" path. Wait a bit and things will become clearer.

Well, so far they aren't experiencing a huge increase rape and general crime.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 13 May 2017 07:23:02PM *  1 point [-]

This is utterly LUDICROUS.

Look at what happened. tukabel wrote a post of rambling, grammar-impaired, hysteria-mongering hyperbole: 'invading millions of crimmigrants that may rob/rape/kill you anytime day or night'.This is utterly unquestionably NOT a rationally presented point on politics, and it does not belong on this forum, and it deserves to be downvoted into oblivion.

Stuart said he wished to be able to downvote it.

Then out of nowhere you come in and blame him personally or starting something he manifestly didn't start. It's a 100% false comment.

Upon being called out on this, you backtrack and say your earlier point didn't actually matter (meaning it was bullshit to begin with), complaining that he's gasp liberal.

But here it didn't take being liberal to want to downvote. If I agreed 100% with tukabel, I would be freaking EMBARRASSED to have that argument presented on my side. It was a really bad comment!

Comment author: lmn 15 May 2017 10:58:48PM 4 points [-]

'invading millions of crimmigrants that may rob/rape/kill you anytime day or night'

Well, they are in fact robbing, killing, and raping people, and the authorities are remarkably uninterested in doing anything about it besides accusing the victims of "racism". In fact in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence then a migrant who engages in robbing, killing, or raping.

This is utterly unquestionably NOT a rationally presented point on politics

Why not? Because he said something false? A better question is why you refer to the truth as "hysteria-mongering hyperbole"?

Comment author: Lumifer 08 May 2017 02:40:49PM 0 points [-]

So what's your definition of a "technological civilization"?

For the purposes of this discussion I'll define it as a civilization sufficiently advanced to be become global. The relevant point is that no local calamity will extinguish it, you need a planet-wide adverse event to collapse it. I think XVII century and later would count as such.

Dying out of local societies, cultures, cities, states, etc. has, of course, been a very common occurrence throughout history.

Comment author: lmn 08 May 2017 10:56:07PM 0 points [-]

For the purposes of this discussion I'll define it as a civilization sufficiently advanced to be become global. The relevant point is that no local calamity will extinguish it,

The problem is that the global nature of civilization can also cause calamities to become global.

The Roman Empire was more global than its predecessors but was still fallen mainly by internally generated calamities.

Comment author: Lumifer 05 May 2017 05:38:00PM 1 point [-]

You are not making much sense. "Those kind of things" are very different.

States collapse (historically) often -- e.g. Somalia. Systems of government collapse occasionally -- e.g. USSR. None of these events are usually described as a "civilization collapse".

I don't know of any case of the collapse of a technological civilization. If you want to stretch the definition of "technological" you can find something in the BC eras, but that isn't very relevant. And you still haven't answered the question: what exactly will collapse? "Civilization" is a very handwavy answer.

Comment author: lmn 08 May 2017 03:56:50AM 2 points [-]

I don't know of any case of the collapse of a technological civilization. If you want to stretch the definition of "technological" you can find something in the BC eras, but that isn't very relevant.

So what's your definition of a "technological civilization"? Can you give another example of one? Otherwise this sounds like your arguing that you are immortal because no one exactly like you has ever died.

For example, lead and copper production create characteristic types of atmospheric pollution so we can get estimates for historical world production levels from Greenland ice cores. The resulting graph for lead shows two peaks, corresponding to ancient Rome and modern civilization. The graph for copper shows three peaks, the two for lead and also Song dynasty China. The peaks are surrounded by troughs, eg, world lead production wouldn't return to Roman levels until the 18th century, so in that sense we can objectively say that technological civilizations have collapsed in the past.

Comment author: lmn 05 May 2017 04:41:54AM *  6 points [-]

Cities, with their large and varied-skill workforce, will suffer less than the countryside.

I agree with your post except for this. Based on reading post-WWII accounts of Germany and Japan, when the economic/trade system breaks down, it becomes hard to get food if you don't live where it's being grown.

Comment author: alexey 27 April 2017 03:58:01PM 0 points [-]

Most leftists ... believe we can all agree on what crops to grow (what social values to have [2])

Whose slogan is "family values", again?

and pull out and burn the weeds of nostalgia, counter-revolution, and the bourgeoisie

Or the weeds of revolution, hippies, and trade unions...

Conservatives view their own society the way environmentalists view the environment: as a complex organism best not lightly tampered with. They're skeptical of the ability of new policies to do what they're supposed to do, especially a whole bunch of new policies all enacted at once.

Bunch of new policies like War on Drugs, for example?

Comment author: lmn 30 April 2017 06:09:05PM 0 points [-]

Or the weeds of revolution, hippies, and trade unions

I think the conservative attitude towards those things is more likely the environmentalist attitude towards invasive species.

View more: Next