I find it rather pitiful that a group of supposed rationalists skitter away in terror from political conversations. There’s some part of reality that all this rationality simply cannot handle. Defeat Death and Conquer the Galaxy. No Problem. Talk about the minimum wage. Aiiieeeee! Run away!
I grant that it is a difficult problem, to have a rational discussion about politics. Or even identify what one would look like. Wouldn’t tackling exactly that kind of problem be the proof of the pudding for this place?
Defeat Death and Conquer the Galaxy. No Problem. Talk about the minimum wage. Aiiieeeee! Run away!
I think that LW could benefit by relaxing a bit the politics taboo, but this is a comparison of apples to oranges. Nobody in this forum is actually conquering the galaxy (yet?); the proper comparison is between discussing about conquering the galaxy and discussing about the minimum wage, and since there are established political tribes around the second question and not the first, it is not implausible that the second discussion could become mind-killing faster than the first one.
There ought to be a mailing list (e.g. a Google group) for political and metapolitical discussion. As a name for the list, I suggest “rational-metapolitics” rather than “rational-politics”, in order to preempt ideological colonization of the list by people who mostly want to push a set of object-level views they have already figured out. I don’t mean that object-level discussion would be off-topic, quite the contrary, but giving the list a “meta” name would establish political agnosticism as the default starting point, rather than any particular political worldview which already identifies itself as rational.
I find it rather pitiful that a group of supposed rationalists skitter away in terror from political conversations. There’s some part of reality that all this rationality simply cannot handle.
It’s not about being unable to handle political arguments at all. The point is that we should focus on what we can do best, which is refining the art of human rationality.
I think you’re severely misunderestimating the problems here. People do not fight each other IRL over the best way of conquering the galaxy. They frequently do so when political issues are involved.
And wouldn’t this imply that discussing politics is a much more challenging test of your skills as a rationalist, much the better to refine those skills?
If we actually had the power to conquer the galaxy, you don’t think that would become a political question on how to do it? Is this refined art of rationality only for talking about things that are easy to talk about and don’t matter today?
And wouldn’t this imply that discussing politics is a much more challenging test of your skills as a rationalist, much the better to refine those skills?
Not exclusively so. Discussing politics (or more to the point, doing politics) in anything approaching a rational way involves a variety of skills in mediation, adaptation, compromise, creative thinking and so on. There’s nothing wrong with developing these skills persay, but LW is not the most appropriate site for doing this. We would be far better off with a specialized effort.
But I didn’t discuss doing politics, I discussed discussing politics. In fact, being able to make the distinction is probably the first step in keeping politics from becoming a mind killer.
But I didn’t discuss doing politics, I discussed discussing politics. In fact, being able to make the distinction is probably the first step in keeping politics from becoming a mind killer.
The problem is, you may think you’re only discussing politics, but some politically minded folks might show up at any moment and take issue with your “discussion” or try to bias it toards their preferred side. Historically, that’s the reason freedom of speech is expressly recognized as a basic right in constitutional law. Politically minded folks wanting to participate in an online discussion are not quite the same as oppressive rulers, but they’re still annoying, and it makes sense to deal with them in a way that will boost our real-world credibility.
In any politically-charged discussion, we’d need to assume the worst, i.e. that we’re actually exerting some kind of real-world influence, with all that entails.
I find it rather pitiful that a group of supposed rationalists skitter away in terror from political conversations. There’s some part of reality that all this rationality simply cannot handle. Defeat Death and Conquer the Galaxy. No Problem. Talk about the minimum wage. Aiiieeeee! Run away!
I grant that it is a difficult problem, to have a rational discussion about politics. Or even identify what one would look like. Wouldn’t tackling exactly that kind of problem be the proof of the pudding for this place?
I think that LW could benefit by relaxing a bit the politics taboo, but this is a comparison of apples to oranges. Nobody in this forum is actually conquering the galaxy (yet?); the proper comparison is between discussing about conquering the galaxy and discussing about the minimum wage, and since there are established political tribes around the second question and not the first, it is not implausible that the second discussion could become mind-killing faster than the first one.
How can you be so certain?
Shhhhh! It’s misdirection!
There ought to be a mailing list (e.g. a Google group) for political and metapolitical discussion. As a name for the list, I suggest “rational-metapolitics” rather than “rational-politics”, in order to preempt ideological colonization of the list by people who mostly want to push a set of object-level views they have already figured out. I don’t mean that object-level discussion would be off-topic, quite the contrary, but giving the list a “meta” name would establish political agnosticism as the default starting point, rather than any particular political worldview which already identifies itself as rational.
It’s not about being unable to handle political arguments at all. The point is that we should focus on what we can do best, which is refining the art of human rationality.
I think you’re severely misunderestimating the problems here. People do not fight each other IRL over the best way of conquering the galaxy. They frequently do so when political issues are involved.
(yet).
:-)
And wouldn’t this imply that discussing politics is a much more challenging test of your skills as a rationalist, much the better to refine those skills?
If we actually had the power to conquer the galaxy, you don’t think that would become a political question on how to do it? Is this refined art of rationality only for talking about things that are easy to talk about and don’t matter today?
Not exclusively so. Discussing politics (or more to the point, doing politics) in anything approaching a rational way involves a variety of skills in mediation, adaptation, compromise, creative thinking and so on. There’s nothing wrong with developing these skills persay, but LW is not the most appropriate site for doing this. We would be far better off with a specialized effort.
But I didn’t discuss doing politics, I discussed discussing politics. In fact, being able to make the distinction is probably the first step in keeping politics from becoming a mind killer.
The problem is, you may think you’re only discussing politics, but some politically minded folks might show up at any moment and take issue with your “discussion” or try to bias it toards their preferred side. Historically, that’s the reason freedom of speech is expressly recognized as a basic right in constitutional law. Politically minded folks wanting to participate in an online discussion are not quite the same as oppressive rulers, but they’re still annoying, and it makes sense to deal with them in a way that will boost our real-world credibility.
In any politically-charged discussion, we’d need to assume the worst, i.e. that we’re actually exerting some kind of real-world influence, with all that entails.