Strictly speaking, I only said that it appears that way.
What does it mean to “claim taboo (common language) status for a truth”? Suppose I did believe in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and considered myself a follower of that God; that would certainly be un-Rationalist and morally deplorable of me, but why shouldn’t I say it if it is true?
All this is the leadup to my question: what highly probable or effectively certain truths are genuinely taboo? I’m trying to avoid answers like “there are fewer women in mathematics” or “the size of my penis,” since these are context sensitive, but not really taboo within a reasonable range of circumstances.
You can say it under a reasonable range of circumstances. “I can only whisper it to close confidants” is not a reasonable range. “I can get away with it except in the comment section at HuffPo” is.
Your next statement, which I think separate. You should say it if it’s true. That would be a quite important truth. But it isn’t, and I don’t see the relevance.
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?
Strictly speaking, I only said that it appears that way.
What does it mean to “claim taboo (common language) status for a truth”? Suppose I did believe in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and considered myself a follower of that God; that would certainly be un-Rationalist and morally deplorable of me, but why shouldn’t I say it if it is true?
Your first question. From the post:
You can say it under a reasonable range of circumstances. “I can only whisper it to close confidants” is not a reasonable range. “I can get away with it except in the comment section at HuffPo” is.
Your next statement, which I think separate. You should say it if it’s true. That would be a quite important truth. But it isn’t, and I don’t see the relevance.
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?