My sarcastic “trigger warning” was a darkly humorous prediction of this rather predictable outcome to voicing feminist thought on this website.
Your “darkly humorous prediction” falls under a pattern we’ve seen lots and lots of time, where some radical something—some radical reactionaries (e.g. monarchists, racists, etc), some of them radical progressives like yourself, judge in advance about how close-minded we’ll be to their ideas, just because we dare to disagree with aspects of their own particular brand of politics. Nothing new here.
They also all tend to judge our downvotes much like you have. In advance, and cynically. Because Politics is the Mind-Killer, and therefore anyone disagreeing with you politically must be The Evil Enemy, deprived of any sincerity whatsoever
Since you downvoted anyway, apparently you do care more about signalling that you are part of the anti-feminist ingroup rather than being a good rationalist.
It’s not I but you who argued on consequentialistic grounds in favour of scientists not speaking with honesty. Therefore it’s your comments that I now find suspect: Do you really believe what you’re saying, or are you just finding it of benefit to the feminist cause?
Anyway, you don’t seem to particularly care whether feminism is factually true (if it’s a set of beliefs) or which precise terminal values it seeks to maximize in society (if it’s a value-system or a political movement). Your posts keeps confusing the “is” and the “should”. As such it falls beneath any standards of rationality that would deserve an upvote.
True, but if I’m going to keep losing karma for this I might as well have fun in the process.
As such it falls beneath any standards of rationality that would deserve an upvote.
Rationality means winning. Further, rationality means having something to protect beyond merely your own self-image as a rationalist. What do you have to protect? If you were faced between lying about research and not protecting that thing, you would lie (or else it isn’t your thing-to-protect), and I hope you know that. What I’ve been saying is no different from the SIAI hoping to slow research on strong AI.
If you profess to be a rationalist, but don’t care about winning and have nothing to win in the first place, that falls below any standard of rationality I know of, regardless of how Internet Brownie Points factor into it.
According to some terminal values, which you’ve not yet specified in regards to how they relate to your feminism, and which I’m not certain you’re very clear about yourself. Any particular political struggle should normally be of instrumental value only.
Your “darkly humorous prediction” falls under a pattern we’ve seen lots and lots of time, where some radical something—some radical reactionaries (e.g. monarchists, racists, etc), some of them radical progressives like yourself, judge in advance about how close-minded we’ll be to their ideas, just because we dare to disagree with aspects of their own particular brand of politics. Nothing new here.
They also all tend to judge our downvotes much like you have. In advance, and cynically. Because Politics is the Mind-Killer, and therefore anyone disagreeing with you politically must be The Evil Enemy, deprived of any sincerity whatsoever
It’s not I but you who argued on consequentialistic grounds in favour of scientists not speaking with honesty. Therefore it’s your comments that I now find suspect: Do you really believe what you’re saying, or are you just finding it of benefit to the feminist cause?
Anyway, you don’t seem to particularly care whether feminism is factually true (if it’s a set of beliefs) or which precise terminal values it seeks to maximize in society (if it’s a value-system or a political movement). Your posts keeps confusing the “is” and the “should”. As such it falls beneath any standards of rationality that would deserve an upvote.
True, but if I’m going to keep losing karma for this I might as well have fun in the process.
Rationality means winning. Further, rationality means having something to protect beyond merely your own self-image as a rationalist. What do you have to protect? If you were faced between lying about research and not protecting that thing, you would lie (or else it isn’t your thing-to-protect), and I hope you know that. What I’ve been saying is no different from the SIAI hoping to slow research on strong AI.
If you profess to be a rationalist, but don’t care about winning and have nothing to win in the first place, that falls below any standard of rationality I know of, regardless of how Internet Brownie Points factor into it.
According to some terminal values, which you’ve not yet specified in regards to how they relate to your feminism, and which I’m not certain you’re very clear about yourself. Any particular political struggle should normally be of instrumental value only.