“What discussions are germane to LW discourse?” is currently an open question being discussed. For example, in Focus on Rationality, Oscar_Cunningham demarcates germane vs not-germane by the following criterion:
I’m suggesting is that LessWrong posts [...] should focus on rationality. They can talk about other things too, but the question should always be “What can X teach us about rationality?”
By that criterion, this post certainly isn’t germane. But I disagree with Oscar and think his criterion is too restrictive. I laid out my thoughts (albeit in a stream of consciousness) here. The gist of what I said is this:
LW should definitely have a focus on learning epistemic/instrumental rationality. But I’d also like to posts on applying rationality to important topics. I think both can compliment each other nicely, and both are useful.
Even by that looser criterion, I am finding this post to be outside what I find acceptable for LW discourse. Like I said, it may be an interesting set of questions. And I agree with you that it is a bit of an unusual issue. But when I log onto discussion, it’s just not the type of conversation I am looking for. There’s something else missing from the topic needed for me to include it in the set of topics I approve for LW. And moreover, the set of topics the majority of people approve for LW.
Alternatively, it may be just you’re looking for. In that regard, I think you’re in a minority of posters. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a way to turn this from a divergence of values into a disagreement on facts. Since values on the issue seem to cluster around positions like Oscar’s and mine more so than yours, it’s an uphill battle for you. Like what happened in this thread, others will be pretty quickly down voted.
About the other point: I find the point of whether this discussion boarders on the political much more clear cut. The OP knows that gay marriage is a heated political issue. I think it’s a fair inference that they know polygamy is, too. The OP brings up both, as well as the question of whether “polies [should] campaign for the right for a civil union.”
Now, I don’t think most regulars would come into this post and try to intentionally politicize this issue more than it already is. Regulars likely know better than to do that. Actually, I think it is possible that some LW-ers, advanced in rationality, could have a reasonable conversation about the issue.
But so far as I understand it, the scenario of one bad political discussion is not why we have a rule against political discussions. Our rule against political discussions is, in part, a Schelling fence against one good political discussion leading to more political discussions, some of which likely won’t be as successful. But those political discussions serve as a slippery slope to more, even worse political discussions. One reason for that is the kind of person political discussions generally appeal to and would attract to LW. (Read: people without the knowledge of what actually can make a political discussion successful.) And so on and so forth, I trust you know how a slippery slope argument works.
As with the first issue of LW discourse, you’re free to disagree with me on this. If you were to write up arguments for why we should broaden our boundaries of what we consider germane or for why the no politics rule should be weakened/repealed, then that would be contrarianism worth reading. Who knows, popular opinion might change. (Especially if your arguments are sound and LW-ers are otherwise rational enough to have political conversations. If the majority couldn’t change their minds on this non-political issue given a sound argument, then political discussions certainly wouldn’t work.)
Until the point when community norms/rules are changed, I still think that this post violates them. So my disapproval and down vote remains. I think I’ve said all I have to say on the topic and have other priorities at the moment, so I’m tapping out. Please feel free to take the last word.
The OP knows that gay marriage is a heated political issue. I think it’s a fair inference that they know polygamy is, too. The OP brings up both, as well as the question of whether “polies [should] campaign for the right for a civil union.”
I’m pretty sure that the OP is talking about polyamory, not polygamy (I don’t know if you were unaware of that, or if you deliberately brought up polygamy as an analogy).
If I wanted to be cynical I’d say that polygamy and polyamory describe pretty much the same phenomenon, except that polygamy is detestable and reactionary and oppressive, whereas polyamory is the complete opposite; or that polyamory is when it’s done by fashionable white people, and polygamy is when it’s done by weird brown foreigners (I don’t think either of these is a fair statement!).
I agree with your main point—I don’t particularly want to see more discussions of social policy on LessWrong, especially when they don’t push the analysis very far.
I know that there are several poly- words, including polyamory and polygamy, but am not knowledge about the distinctions. I thought polyamory was a catch-all word for “romantic relationships where people can have more than one partner, with the knowledge and approval of all other partners.” Or something to that effect. And polygamy is a particular kind of polyamory where the partners are married. I could definitely be mistaken about those words’ meanings, though.
Since poly was brought up by the OP in the context of gay marriage and civil unions, I used polygamy. But I certainly didn’t mean to imply any sort of connotation by the use of “polygamy” rather than “polyamory.”
or that polyamory is when it’s done by fashionable white people, and polygamy is when it’s done by weird brown foreigners
I thought it was “polyamory is when it’s done by New Yorkers (Californians?), polygamy is when it’s done by Utahans,” and weird brown people have harems and concubines instead.
(Though of course I also don’t think this is a fair characterization)
Is there anyone on LW who still has a problem with gay problem?
What do you mean by a problem in this context? I think there’s a decent Burkian argument that there will be unforeseen consequences that won’t become apparent until well after gay marriage is common. But I’m strongly in favor of gay marriage.
My gut reaction is that very few, if any, current LW-ers have a problem with gay marriage. Because of the context of the OP, I was referring to the general American public. Sorry, I could have been more clear about that.
Tackling interesting and unusual issues is very much a “germane LW discourse”. And I don’t see this crowd trying to politicize this particular issue.
“What discussions are germane to LW discourse?” is currently an open question being discussed. For example, in Focus on Rationality, Oscar_Cunningham demarcates germane vs not-germane by the following criterion:
By that criterion, this post certainly isn’t germane. But I disagree with Oscar and think his criterion is too restrictive. I laid out my thoughts (albeit in a stream of consciousness) here. The gist of what I said is this:
Even by that looser criterion, I am finding this post to be outside what I find acceptable for LW discourse. Like I said, it may be an interesting set of questions. And I agree with you that it is a bit of an unusual issue. But when I log onto discussion, it’s just not the type of conversation I am looking for. There’s something else missing from the topic needed for me to include it in the set of topics I approve for LW. And moreover, the set of topics the majority of people approve for LW.
Alternatively, it may be just you’re looking for. In that regard, I think you’re in a minority of posters. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a way to turn this from a divergence of values into a disagreement on facts. Since values on the issue seem to cluster around positions like Oscar’s and mine more so than yours, it’s an uphill battle for you. Like what happened in this thread, others will be pretty quickly down voted.
About the other point: I find the point of whether this discussion boarders on the political much more clear cut. The OP knows that gay marriage is a heated political issue. I think it’s a fair inference that they know polygamy is, too. The OP brings up both, as well as the question of whether “polies [should] campaign for the right for a civil union.”
Now, I don’t think most regulars would come into this post and try to intentionally politicize this issue more than it already is. Regulars likely know better than to do that. Actually, I think it is possible that some LW-ers, advanced in rationality, could have a reasonable conversation about the issue.
But so far as I understand it, the scenario of one bad political discussion is not why we have a rule against political discussions. Our rule against political discussions is, in part, a Schelling fence against one good political discussion leading to more political discussions, some of which likely won’t be as successful. But those political discussions serve as a slippery slope to more, even worse political discussions. One reason for that is the kind of person political discussions generally appeal to and would attract to LW. (Read: people without the knowledge of what actually can make a political discussion successful.) And so on and so forth, I trust you know how a slippery slope argument works.
As with the first issue of LW discourse, you’re free to disagree with me on this. If you were to write up arguments for why we should broaden our boundaries of what we consider germane or for why the no politics rule should be weakened/repealed, then that would be contrarianism worth reading. Who knows, popular opinion might change. (Especially if your arguments are sound and LW-ers are otherwise rational enough to have political conversations. If the majority couldn’t change their minds on this non-political issue given a sound argument, then political discussions certainly wouldn’t work.)
Until the point when community norms/rules are changed, I still think that this post violates them. So my disapproval and down vote remains. I think I’ve said all I have to say on the topic and have other priorities at the moment, so I’m tapping out. Please feel free to take the last word.
I’m pretty sure that the OP is talking about polyamory, not polygamy (I don’t know if you were unaware of that, or if you deliberately brought up polygamy as an analogy).
If I wanted to be cynical I’d say that polygamy and polyamory describe pretty much the same phenomenon, except that polygamy is detestable and reactionary and oppressive, whereas polyamory is the complete opposite; or that polyamory is when it’s done by fashionable white people, and polygamy is when it’s done by weird brown foreigners (I don’t think either of these is a fair statement!).
I agree with your main point—I don’t particularly want to see more discussions of social policy on LessWrong, especially when they don’t push the analysis very far.
I know that there are several poly- words, including polyamory and polygamy, but am not knowledge about the distinctions. I thought polyamory was a catch-all word for “romantic relationships where people can have more than one partner, with the knowledge and approval of all other partners.” Or something to that effect. And polygamy is a particular kind of polyamory where the partners are married. I could definitely be mistaken about those words’ meanings, though.
Since poly was brought up by the OP in the context of gay marriage and civil unions, I used polygamy. But I certainly didn’t mean to imply any sort of connotation by the use of “polygamy” rather than “polyamory.”
I thought it was “polyamory is when it’s done by New Yorkers (Californians?), polygamy is when it’s done by Utahans,” and weird brown people have harems and concubines instead.
(Though of course I also don’t think this is a fair characterization)
Oh, I had forgot about Mormons—here in France, Muslim immigrants are the first thing that comes to mind on discussions of Polygamy.
Ah! Well, good to know. Generally I expect “Utahans” and “weird brown foreigners” are to be inflected similarly in both of these versions, anyway.
Is there anyone on LW who still has a problem with gay people?
edit: “people” not “problem”
What do you mean by a problem in this context? I think there’s a decent Burkian argument that there will be unforeseen consequences that won’t become apparent until well after gay marriage is common. But I’m strongly in favor of gay marriage.
My point was that, although gay marriage might be a “heated political issue” among the general public, it’s not controversial here.
I mean hell, evolution is controversial to the public but LWers mention it all the time.
Yeah, in that sort of context, you’re correct. There’s almost certainly no substantial controversy here in that sense.
“Still” is a wrong assumption.
My gut reaction is that very few, if any, current LW-ers have a problem with gay marriage. Because of the context of the OP, I was referring to the general American public. Sorry, I could have been more clear about that.
In general, I think you’ve picked out the relevant norms for Main posts, but they apply less strongly to Discussion.