In addition to “discussing politics is dangerous, because it usually leads to non-rationality”, this is what I consider problematic in this specific article:
First, I have no idea what exactly are you talking about. The word “conservatism” means different things in different countries, and probably also different things to many people within the same country. I don’t know what “political ideas of conservatism” mean for you. You could have provided a few examples in the article. Then we would know we are all thinking about the same thing (even if some of us would give it a different label).
Second, beware of connotations, especially in sensitive topics. (Connotations are the things you did not write, but people read them in your text anyway; because they pattern-match with arguments typically made by other people, or otherwise provide weak evidence.) For example, even if you did not write it, a reader might assume that you think the “political ideas of conservatism” are more biased that political ideas of other political things (especially those that come first into mind as an opposition to conservatism). Because, if you did not mean it, why did you choose conservatism for your example, instead of something else, or instead of speaking generally about biases in politics? If you meant it, you should be explicit, and if you did not mean it, a small disclaimer could help.
Third, this article is really short. This is what Open Thread topics are for.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that if you fix these three things, then the article will be OK. I am just saying that in addition to speaking about politics, these three things make it worse. (In addition to political taboo, you have also violated some topic-independent standards of LW discussion.)
I hope you will not be discouraged by the fate of this article.
Wow, I’ve clearly made some sort of mistake here, but thanks to all for your replies!
“Conservatism” is a political-shouting-match trigger word in the United States.
We generally don’t take well to Reddit-style politics. It usually degrades quickly into a “circlejerk”, which is what our goal here is to avoid.
In addition to “discussing politics is dangerous, because it usually leads to non-rationality”, this is what I consider problematic in this specific article:
First, I have no idea what exactly are you talking about. The word “conservatism” means different things in different countries, and probably also different things to many people within the same country. I don’t know what “political ideas of conservatism” mean for you. You could have provided a few examples in the article. Then we would know we are all thinking about the same thing (even if some of us would give it a different label).
Second, beware of connotations, especially in sensitive topics. (Connotations are the things you did not write, but people read them in your text anyway; because they pattern-match with arguments typically made by other people, or otherwise provide weak evidence.) For example, even if you did not write it, a reader might assume that you think the “political ideas of conservatism” are more biased that political ideas of other political things (especially those that come first into mind as an opposition to conservatism). Because, if you did not mean it, why did you choose conservatism for your example, instead of something else, or instead of speaking generally about biases in politics? If you meant it, you should be explicit, and if you did not mean it, a small disclaimer could help.
Third, this article is really short. This is what Open Thread topics are for.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that if you fix these three things, then the article will be OK. I am just saying that in addition to speaking about politics, these three things make it worse. (In addition to political taboo, you have also violated some topic-independent standards of LW discussion.)
I hope you will not be discouraged by the fate of this article.