I am sad to see this comment. Perhaps you were mistaken in how clear the comment was to how broad an audience, but I think the original comment was valuable and that we lose a lot of our ability to communicate if we are too careful.
Except this wasn’t an issue of being too careful, and it definitely doesn’t count as good communication!
Z_M_Davis made a remark that was both poorly-reasoned and supportive of every other comment he left in the discussion (in trivializing the privileged state of any choice of identity). If he had been arguing against the third horn, okay, maybe it could have been read as “oh, he’s cleverly mocking a position he disagrees with”.
But then he comes back with, “I was trying to be cute.” Okay, so he’s … doing self-parody. Great—we all need to be able to laugh at ourselves. So what’s his real position, then?
Oh, you see, he was making a very subtle point about identity being scalar rather than binary (which has some as-of-yet unspecified implication for the merit of his position). And there was a hidden argument in there that allows him to see his life as no different from any others and yet still act in preference to himself. And it was obvious what distinction he was making by using the words “very roughly the same reason” instead of “exactly the same reason”.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not “how it works”. You can claim illusion of transparency issues if the assumed common knowledge is small, and you have a reasonable basis for assuming it, and your full explanation doesn’t look blatantly ad hoc.
In other words, anywhere but here.
I’m sorry to belabor the point, but yes, sometimes you just have to admit you goofed. Mistakes are okay! We all make them! But we don’t all try to say “I meant to do that”.
that allows him to see his life as no different from any others and yet still act in preference to himself
I never said it was no different. Elsewhere in the thread, I had argued that selfishness is entirely compatible with biting the third bullet. Egan’s Law.
And it was obvious what distinction he was making by using the words “very roughly the same reason” instead of “exactly the same reason”.
I disagree; if it had been obvious, I wouldn’t have had to point it out explicitly. Maybe the cognitive history would help? I had originally typed “the same reason,” but added “very roughly” before posting because I anticipated your objection. I think the original was slightly funnier, but I thought it was worth trading off a little of the humor value in exchange for making the statement more defensible when taken literally.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not “how it works”. [...] your full explanation [looks] blatantly ad hoc.
I’m curious. If what actually happened looks ad hoc to you, what’s your alternative theory? If you don’t trust what I say about what I was thinking, then what do you believe instead? You seem to think I’ve committed some error other than writing two admittedly somewhat opaque comments, but I’m not sure what it’s supposed to be.
I am sad to see this comment. Perhaps you were mistaken in how clear the comment was to how broad an audience, but I think the original comment was valuable and that we lose a lot of our ability to communicate if we are too careful.
Except this wasn’t an issue of being too careful, and it definitely doesn’t count as good communication!
Z_M_Davis made a remark that was both poorly-reasoned and supportive of every other comment he left in the discussion (in trivializing the privileged state of any choice of identity). If he had been arguing against the third horn, okay, maybe it could have been read as “oh, he’s cleverly mocking a position he disagrees with”.
But then he comes back with, “I was trying to be cute.” Okay, so he’s … doing self-parody. Great—we all need to be able to laugh at ourselves. So what’s his real position, then?
Oh, you see, he was making a very subtle point about identity being scalar rather than binary (which has some as-of-yet unspecified implication for the merit of his position). And there was a hidden argument in there that allows him to see his life as no different from any others and yet still act in preference to himself. And it was obvious what distinction he was making by using the words “very roughly the same reason” instead of “exactly the same reason”.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not “how it works”. You can claim illusion of transparency issues if the assumed common knowledge is small, and you have a reasonable basis for assuming it, and your full explanation doesn’t look blatantly ad hoc.
In other words, anywhere but here.
I’m sorry to belabor the point, but yes, sometimes you just have to admit you goofed. Mistakes are okay! We all make them! But we don’t all try to say “I meant to do that”.
See Furcas’s comment.
I never said it was no different. Elsewhere in the thread, I had argued that selfishness is entirely compatible with biting the third bullet. Egan’s Law.
I disagree; if it had been obvious, I wouldn’t have had to point it out explicitly. Maybe the cognitive history would help? I had originally typed “the same reason,” but added “very roughly” before posting because I anticipated your objection. I think the original was slightly funnier, but I thought it was worth trading off a little of the humor value in exchange for making the statement more defensible when taken literally.
I’m curious. If what actually happened looks ad hoc to you, what’s your alternative theory? If you don’t trust what I say about what I was thinking, then what do you believe instead? You seem to think I’ve committed some error other than writing two admittedly somewhat opaque comments, but I’m not sure what it’s supposed to be.