phl43

(also, on a purely selfish note, the contemporary political shitstorm has taken over every other venue I communicate in and I really would rather not see it here)

This is definitely something I can understand.

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that there was a wiki.

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

But of course I have done nothing of the sort.

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

Is there a glossary of your jargon somewhere?

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

Engaging in hyperbole instead of rational discussion is a choice.

I don't think the kind of rhetorical hyperbole I'm using in my post, that any normal person can recognize as such, is incompatible with rational discussion. Other than that, what you say is fair enough.

(On another topic, you're using the verb "steelman", which I think you already used before. I had never encountered this word before. I'm guessing that it's local jargon for the opposite of "to strawman", meaning something like "making the position you attack as strong as possible"?)

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

I find it funny, by the way, that people here are criticizing me for not giving evidence for a claim that is not only known to be true by almost everyone, but which can be verified in 5 seconds with Google if you have a doubt, while recommending a piece that begins with a very strong and arguably unverifiable claim about the evolutionary origin of the way in which humans talk about politics... (Which is not to say, to be clear, that I disagree with everything Yudkowsky says in that essay.)

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

Yes, I read it, there was a link in one of the first replies I got.

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

But look, I think we're both wasting our time here, since I've already decided to tone down my language and not to post anything here that is directly related to politics. So I'll just leave it at that, because I really have work to do :-p

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

The issue isn't what you see, the issue is what intelligent people from outside of your echo chamber see.

Okay, let me rephrase what I originally said: it's not incompatible. Do you think it's incompatible? Based on what you say later in your comment, I guess you do. So let me ask you a more general question: do you think there are no claims one can make, such that if someone denies them, one can reasonably conclude that the person denying it is not seriously engaging with one? I'm sure you don't (obvious counterexamples are not hard to come up with), so there must something about the particular claim I made, which makes... (read more)

Replying toA question about the rules

phl439y

A question about the rules

I don't see how that's incompatible. If I say that Trump often speaks unintelligibly and someone denies it or even claims not to be sure that it's true, provided that person is intelligent and has a decent mastery of the English language, I would not believe they are saying that in good faith. Similarly, when I say that immediately after the election a lot of people were asserting that Trump's victory had caused a substantial increase in the number of hate crimes and someone denies it or claims not to be sure it's true, I think it's perfectly reasonable of me to conclude that they are not seriously engaging with me.

Of course,... (read more)

A question about the rules

phl43

I'm new to Less Wrong and I have a question about the rules. I posted a link to the latest post on my blog, in which I argue in a polemical way against the claim that Trump's election caused a wave of hate crimes in the US. Someone complained about the tone of my post, which is fair enough (although I tend not to take very seriously criticism about tone that aren't accompanied by any substantive criticism), but I noticed that my link was taken down.

The same person also said that he or she thought LW tried to avoid politics, so I'm wondering if that's why the link was taken down. I... (read 197 more words →)

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

Did slavery make the US an economic superpower and would the industrial revolution have happened without it?

A question about the rules

What a Portuguese chronicler may teach us about moral relativism

A new blog with analyses of various topics (e. g. slavery and capitalism, why election models didn't predict Trump's victory)

phl43

A question about the rules

What a Portuguese chronicler may teach us about moral relativism

Why election models didn't predict Trump's victory — A primer on how polls and election models work

Did slavery make the US an economic superpower and would the industrial revolution have happened without it?

A new blog with analyses of various topics (e. g. slavery and capitalism, why election models didn't predict Trump's victory)

phl43

Did slavery make the US an economic superpower and would the industrial revolution have happened without it?

A question about the rules

What a Portuguese chronicler may teach us about moral relativism

A new blog with analyses of various topics (e. g. slavery and capitalism, why election models didn't predict Trump's victory)

phl43

A question about the rules

What a Portuguese chronicler may teach us about moral relativism

Why election models didn't predict Trump's victory — A primer on how polls and election models work

Did slavery make the US an economic superpower and would the industrial revolution have happened without it?

A new blog with analyses of various topics (e. g. slavery and capitalism, why election models didn't predict Trump's victory)