Is there any sentence which communicates only something which is objectively true which is also taboo? I think it’s the connotations associated with stating the fact that are taboo.
“I follow x philosophy” as an objectively true statement causes listeners to hear the [Having no objective truth value] statement “I am an immoral person.” in quite a few contexts; likewise with “I have [position] on [topic]” for several topics.
Bill’s statements at the top are taboo because by saying them, Bill is also saying other things about himself. By saying “the end of slavery wasn’t all that good for “the blacks,” and that the negatives of busing and forced integration have often outweighed the positives.”, Bill is making a statement about his value system and/or ability to evaluate the consequences of past events. The subtext is very nearly the same as the subtext would have been if he made an overt declaration that he was a white supremacist. (Which is itself an objectively true statement)
White supremacy is taboo because it is socially rejected in most cases. Statements which imply or support white supremacy are taboo where they are perceived to be made in support or defense of white supremacy.
Is there any sentence which communicates only something which is objectively true which is also taboo? I think it’s the connotations associated with stating the fact that are taboo.
That’s the theme of the post, yes. With this and the rest of your comment, I think we’re on the same page.
Then, to answer your question: Things are taboo when they identify the speaker as an outsider or otherwise excessively different from the main group. Subtexts like “I am not embarrassed to talk about sex.” or “I am a racist.” or “I do not believe that Eliezer cannot be very wrong about something that he has considered carefully.” are taboo wherever the perceived social identity is contrary to that.
ETA: A simpler question: Is there any sentence one can speak which communicates only the content of a claim which has an objective truth value, without even implying that the speaker endorses the claim?
Is there any sentence which communicates only something which is objectively true which is also taboo? I think it’s the connotations associated with stating the fact that are taboo.
“I follow x philosophy” as an objectively true statement causes listeners to hear the [Having no objective truth value] statement “I am an immoral person.” in quite a few contexts; likewise with “I have [position] on [topic]” for several topics.
Bill’s statements at the top are taboo because by saying them, Bill is also saying other things about himself. By saying “the end of slavery wasn’t all that good for “the blacks,” and that the negatives of busing and forced integration have often outweighed the positives.”, Bill is making a statement about his value system and/or ability to evaluate the consequences of past events. The subtext is very nearly the same as the subtext would have been if he made an overt declaration that he was a white supremacist. (Which is itself an objectively true statement)
White supremacy is taboo because it is socially rejected in most cases. Statements which imply or support white supremacy are taboo where they are perceived to be made in support or defense of white supremacy.
That’s the theme of the post, yes. With this and the rest of your comment, I think we’re on the same page.
Then, to answer your question: Things are taboo when they identify the speaker as an outsider or otherwise excessively different from the main group. Subtexts like “I am not embarrassed to talk about sex.” or “I am a racist.” or “I do not believe that Eliezer cannot be very wrong about something that he has considered carefully.” are taboo wherever the perceived social identity is contrary to that.
ETA: A simpler question: Is there any sentence one can speak which communicates only the content of a claim which has an objective truth value, without even implying that the speaker endorses the claim?