propagandize / pointscore / accumulate power with relative ease
There’s a way in which this is correct denotatively, even though the connotation is something I disagree with. Like, I am in fact arguing for increasing a status differential between some behaviors that I think are more appropriate for LW and others that I think are less appropriate. I’m trying at least to be up front about what those behaviors are, so that people can disagree. e.g. if you think that it’s actually not a big deal to distinguish between observation and inference, because people already do a good job teasing those apart.
But yes: I wouldn’t use the “power” frame, but there’s a way in which, in a dance studio, there’s “power” to be had in conforming to the activity of dance and dance instruction, and “less power” in the hands of people not doing those things.
an effort to coordinate power against types of posters that Duncan doesn’t like
I don’t think this is the case; I want to coordinate power against a class of actions. I am agnostic as to who is taking those actions, and even specifically called out that if there are people who are above the local law we should be candid about that fact.
I am not saying it’s bad to make such assertions, just saying that Duncan can and does make such assertions baldly while adhering to norms.
The example you cite seems pretty fair! I think that’s a place where I’m failing to live up, and it’s good that you highlighted it.
Duncan is enforcing norms that he is good at leveraging but that don’t actually protect rationality. But these norms seem to have buy in. Pooey!
If you do happen to feel like listing a couple of underappreciated norms that you think do protect rationality, I would like that.
(I think the norms I’m pulling for increase brevity; more consistent standards mean less need to bend over backwards ruling out everything else in each individual case.)
Your OP is way too long (or not sufficiently indexed) for me to, without considerable strain, determine how much or how meaningfully I think this claim is true. Relatedly I don’t know what you are referring to here.
There’s a way in which this is correct denotatively, even though the connotation is something I disagree with. Like, I am in fact arguing for increasing a status differential between some behaviors that I think are more appropriate for LW and others that I think are less appropriate. I’m trying at least to be up front about what those behaviors are, so that people can disagree. e.g. if you think that it’s actually not a big deal to distinguish between observation and inference, because people already do a good job teasing those apart.
But yes: I wouldn’t use the “power” frame, but there’s a way in which, in a dance studio, there’s “power” to be had in conforming to the activity of dance and dance instruction, and “less power” in the hands of people not doing those things.
I don’t think this is the case; I want to coordinate power against a class of actions. I am agnostic as to who is taking those actions, and even specifically called out that if there are people who are above the local law we should be candid about that fact.
The example you cite seems pretty fair! I think that’s a place where I’m failing to live up, and it’s good that you highlighted it.
If you do happen to feel like listing a couple of underappreciated norms that you think do protect rationality, I would like that.
Brevity
Strong upvote.
(I think the norms I’m pulling for increase brevity; more consistent standards mean less need to bend over backwards ruling out everything else in each individual case.)
Your OP is way too long (or not sufficiently indexed) for me to, without considerable strain, determine how much or how meaningfully I think this claim is true. Relatedly I don’t know what you are referring to here.