eg “Metathics isn’t complicated, it just awesomeness”. However “Metaethics is complicated, but you can get an initial toehold on it by considering awesomeness” is OK. That;s just introductory.
I’m aware that you think this is an example. Could you tell me what you mean?
Presenting something that is simplistic (too simple, lossy) as if it were adequate, or even superior to standard versions.
I see. And you claim that overexposure to such material has rendered the average LW member unable to detect oversimplification?
Thats my explanation for the upvoting that puzzled the articles’ author.
Thank you for clarifying.
eg “Metathics isn’t complicated, it just awesomeness”. However “Metaethics is complicated, but you can get an initial toehold on it by considering awesomeness” is OK. That;s just introductory.
I’m aware that you think this is an example. Could you tell me what you mean?
Presenting something that is simplistic (too simple, lossy) as if it were adequate, or even superior to standard versions.
I see. And you claim that overexposure to such material has rendered the average LW member unable to detect oversimplification?
Thats my explanation for the upvoting that puzzled the articles’ author.
Thank you for clarifying.