Really the only acceptable conversation I can think of goes something like:
With the another evident exception being this conversation and those like it that employ sufficient indirection. The ancestor is currently at +4, 100%.
Hrm? I’m not sure why you think I disagree with your comment. Taking a step meta is generally acceptable. People claim the Holocaust never happened is not taboo, even if The Holocaust never happened is taboo in many contexts.
I think the ancestor is a +12 because it is a great example of what the OP requested—a true, probably taboo sentence.
I’m not sure why you think I disagree with your comment.
You presumably don’t, but it contradicts what you said. (See below.) I expressed the additional information because it makes the conversation less wrong.
Taking a step meta is generally acceptable. People claim the Holocaust never happened is not taboo, even if The Holocaust never happened is taboo in many contexts.
If you look closely at the actual information communicated you may note that this qualitatively different. Your example is of an entirely meta claim being made. The case in the grandparent is a meta claim being made as a prefix to an actual object level claim. Specifically:
I’m not 100% sure that is true, but I think it is true. At least, I know I did and I believe that many children engage in a fair amount of self-stimulation.
An analogous “holocaust” claim would therefore be “People claim the Holocaust never happened. I’m not 100% sure that it never happend but I think it didn’t. At least I know all the evidence I’ve encountered is faked and I believe that a relevant general class of people faked evidence.”
I think the ancestor is a +12 because it is a great example of what the OP requested—a true, probably taboo sentence.
I agree entirely. That it also happens to be an additional way to actually make claims about the subject while not triggering the taboo penalties is secondary. And incidentally an example of a generalizable social tactic.
Can you give an example of how one might apply the tactic generally, outside of the context of having been asked for a true taboo statement? I don’t doubt you, but I find myself unable to work it out. After all, the whole problem with statements like “children enjoy genital stimulation” is the implications of having brought the subject up.
I mean, I understand that “People claim children enjoy genital stimulation; I’m not sure myself but I think they might be right” is safer than “Children enjoy genital stimulation.” alone, by virtue of multiple levels of indirection and hedge phrases and whatnot, but it doesn’t seem possible to say either one in response to, say, “My child cries all night long, I wish there were some way to quiet them down!” (or, more generally though less entertainingly, to volunteer either of them) without triggering taboo penalties.
With the another evident exception being this conversation and those like it that employ sufficient indirection. The ancestor is currently at +4, 100%.
Hrm? I’m not sure why you think I disagree with your comment. Taking a step meta is generally acceptable. People claim the Holocaust never happened is not taboo, even if The Holocaust never happened is taboo in many contexts.
I think the ancestor is a +12 because it is a great example of what the OP requested—a true, probably taboo sentence.
You presumably don’t, but it contradicts what you said. (See below.) I expressed the additional information because it makes the conversation less wrong.
If you look closely at the actual information communicated you may note that this qualitatively different. Your example is of an entirely meta claim being made. The case in the grandparent is a meta claim being made as a prefix to an actual object level claim. Specifically:
An analogous “holocaust” claim would therefore be “People claim the Holocaust never happened. I’m not 100% sure that it never happend but I think it didn’t. At least I know all the evidence I’ve encountered is faked and I believe that a relevant general class of people faked evidence.”
I agree entirely. That it also happens to be an additional way to actually make claims about the subject while not triggering the taboo penalties is secondary. And incidentally an example of a generalizable social tactic.
Can you give an example of how one might apply the tactic generally, outside of the context of having been asked for a true taboo statement? I don’t doubt you, but I find myself unable to work it out. After all, the whole problem with statements like “children enjoy genital stimulation” is the implications of having brought the subject up.
I mean, I understand that “People claim children enjoy genital stimulation; I’m not sure myself but I think they might be right” is safer than “Children enjoy genital stimulation.” alone, by virtue of multiple levels of indirection and hedge phrases and whatnot, but it doesn’t seem possible to say either one in response to, say, “My child cries all night long, I wish there were some way to quiet them down!” (or, more generally though less entertainingly, to volunteer either of them) without triggering taboo penalties.
Well … yeah, that would be a pretty terrible context to interject this little factoid in.
A better one might be in response to someone waxing eloquent over protecting the purity of The Children.