These are good points. I was just curious as to why the conversation wasn’t framed as “accept that offense is a type of harm; now let’s discuss the winning strategy”
Probably because most commentors weren’t aware that their response to the situation was a case of what the algorithm feels like from inside. They determined a winning move, but in status games (and bargaining Schelling style) an unreasonable or irrational attachment to a winning move is much more effective than selecting that move because it’s the best.
These are good points. I was just curious as to why the conversation wasn’t framed as “accept that offense is a type of harm; now let’s discuss the winning strategy”
Probably because most commentors weren’t aware that their response to the situation was a case of what the algorithm feels like from inside. They determined a winning move, but in status games (and bargaining Schelling style) an unreasonable or irrational attachment to a winning move is much more effective than selecting that move because it’s the best.