I’d say they were cowards. Suicide isn’t an act of bravery. Murdering the defenseless isn’t an act of bravery. Even murdering soldiers in peacetime, when they aren’t expecting attack, is cowardly. I still remember a kid who hit me from behind on the street once, because he was too much of a pussy to come up to my face about it. The hijackers attacked, during peacetime, civilians and murdered other civilians. That’s cowardly in the extreme.
I understand the point of your post, and don’t disagree with the basic premise. But just as you blew the Thanksgiving post with your “Native American Genocide Day” comment (even though you did not and can not present evidence that anyone anywhere is sitting around a table giving thanks that Native Americans suffered a (fictional) genocide), now you’re claiming brainwashed (if not drug-induced) suicide of defenseless and unsuspecting people isn’t the height of cowardice.
Is there a reason you can’t work on your OWN biases?
Labels such as “freedom” and “enemy” are relative. Attributes such as “cowardice” and “courage” are likewise relative. If soldiers from “our side”, fighting for “our cause”, sacrificed themselves on suicide missions that inflicted serious harm to the “enemy”, all in the name of our “freedom”, we’d call them courageous. The “enemy” would call them cowards.
Were the 9/11 attackers cowards? Were they brave patriots? Such labels, formed in the biased eye of the observer, are meaningless.
I respond to my original comment, at the risk of appearing to talk to myself. In looking at replies to my comment, some portion of a conversation appears to be missing—talking to myself seemed the best way to jump back in.
I stand corrected. These words do, of course, have meaning. However, I believe they are more meaningful in terms of describing the speaker. RU uses the term “coward” to describe the 9/11 attackers—this tells me a great deal about RU, but very little about the attackers.
Incidentally, as I forgot earlier: Welcome to LessWrong! Feel free to post an introduction of yourself! “What Do We Mean By Rationality” is interesting if you haven’t read any of the other posts on the blog.
Regarding your comment: I think your point is fairly accurate in a lot of circumstances—there was something else Eliezer Yudkowsky posted, “Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided”, which I think made a related point.
Thanks, Jack. I hadn’t checked the context, either—it makes more sense as a reply here.
That said: “coward” has both a denotation and a connotation, and it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to promote usage which undermines the former. Yes, people do … but we can do better than that. Particularly given that the denotationally-accurate term “fanatic” connotes disapproval as well.
Edit: On reflection, upvoted. Yes, the words have meanings—but when they are used as political weapons, as they are in this context, these meanings are frequently ignored in favor of their political purpose.
Cowerdly does not simply mean bad. Saying that sacraficing your life to achive a goal is cowardly is nonsense.
They suppressed there fears, that’s what bravery means. You can be brave doing horrible things. Mao was brave, Hitler was (at times) brave. You are falling into the halo issue, saying that if an act was bad it must be bad in all ways.
Cowerdly does not simply mean bad. Saying that sacraficing your life to achive a goal is cowardly is nonsense.
“Cowardly” is a term of vice, and it does therefore imply some negative normative value. To use it otherwise is using the word wrong.
They suppressed there fears, that’s what bravery means. You can be brave doing horrible things. Mao was brave, Hitler was (at times) brave. You are falling into the halo issue, saying that if an act was bad it must be bad in all ways.
“Bravery” is said in many ways, but I believe here it was being used as a synonym for “courage”. “Courage” is a term of virtue, and it does therefore imply some positive normative value. To use it otherwise is to use the word wrong.
Some words in English have normative value as part of their meaning. To say that someone is “good” is simply an ascription of value, while to say someone is “present” contains no ascription of value; however, to say that someone is “courageous” is both a description of their behavior and a statement that their character and/or actions are virtuous.
Thus, to say (for example) “his courage was vicious” is inconsistent.
ETA: And “is said in many ways” is an Aristotelian idiom roughly meaning “has multiple senses in common use”.
While words have a normative value as part of their common use, I think the reason you’re getting so many down votes for those comments is that “value” is only a behavioral mechanism on our own part. Lots of people ascribe negative or positive values to event X. Great. But that’s just a response in the human brain(s) that observe(s) event X, not a part of event X itself.
And to say that “his courage was vicious”—you know what, I like that. I’m going to look for a way to use that in prose.
I think the reason you’re getting so many down votes...
I think it’s more likely that I got downvotes because I was 1) telling people they’re using a word wrong, and 2) invoking Aristotelian idioms in a context not friendly to Aristotle.
I’m not concerned.
“value” is only a behavioral mechanism on our own part. Lots of people ascribe negative or positive values to event X. Great. But that’s just a response in the human brain(s) that observe(s) event X, not a part of event X itself.
That really isn’t relevant. The words are also produced by human brains, and are often about value. If you say “good” and mean “bad”, then you’re using the word wrong. At a minimum, that’s bad communication. And some words have “good” or “bad” as part of their meaning. If you don’t want to imply virtue, you can say (for example) “bold” or “fearless” instead of “courageous” (if you want to imply vice, you can say “brash” or “reckless”). There are many words.
I’d say they were cowards. Suicide isn’t an act of bravery. Murdering the defenseless isn’t an act of bravery. Even murdering soldiers in peacetime, when they aren’t expecting attack, is cowardly. I still remember a kid who hit me from behind on the street once, because he was too much of a pussy to come up to my face about it. The hijackers attacked, during peacetime, civilians and murdered other civilians. That’s cowardly in the extreme.
I understand the point of your post, and don’t disagree with the basic premise. But just as you blew the Thanksgiving post with your “Native American Genocide Day” comment (even though you did not and can not present evidence that anyone anywhere is sitting around a table giving thanks that Native Americans suffered a (fictional) genocide), now you’re claiming brainwashed (if not drug-induced) suicide of defenseless and unsuspecting people isn’t the height of cowardice.
Is there a reason you can’t work on your OWN biases?
Labels such as “freedom” and “enemy” are relative. Attributes such as “cowardice” and “courage” are likewise relative. If soldiers from “our side”, fighting for “our cause”, sacrificed themselves on suicide missions that inflicted serious harm to the “enemy”, all in the name of our “freedom”, we’d call them courageous. The “enemy” would call them cowards.
Were the 9/11 attackers cowards? Were they brave patriots? Such labels, formed in the biased eye of the observer, are meaningless.
I respond to my original comment, at the risk of appearing to talk to myself. In looking at replies to my comment, some portion of a conversation appears to be missing—talking to myself seemed the best way to jump back in.
I stand corrected. These words do, of course, have meaning. However, I believe they are more meaningful in terms of describing the speaker. RU uses the term “coward” to describe the 9/11 attackers—this tells me a great deal about RU, but very little about the attackers.
This is now my second comment—don’t hold back.
Incidentally, as I forgot earlier: Welcome to LessWrong! Feel free to post an introduction of yourself! “What Do We Mean By Rationality” is interesting if you haven’t read any of the other posts on the blog.
Regarding your comment: I think your point is fairly accurate in a lot of circumstances—there was something else Eliezer Yudkowsky posted, “Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided”, which I think made a related point.
Guys, this is someone’s first comment. Be nice.
Thanks, I didn’t realize.
Thanks, Jack. I hadn’t checked the context, either—it makes more sense as a reply here.
That said: “coward” has both a denotation and a connotation, and it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to promote usage which undermines the former. Yes, people do … but we can do better than that. Particularly given that the denotationally-accurate term “fanatic” connotes disapproval as well.
Edit: On reflection, upvoted. Yes, the words have meanings—but when they are used as political weapons, as they are in this context, these meanings are frequently ignored in favor of their political purpose.
Cowerdly does not simply mean bad. Saying that sacraficing your life to achive a goal is cowardly is nonsense.
They suppressed there fears, that’s what bravery means. You can be brave doing horrible things. Mao was brave, Hitler was (at times) brave. You are falling into the halo issue, saying that if an act was bad it must be bad in all ways.
“Cowardly” is a term of vice, and it does therefore imply some negative normative value. To use it otherwise is using the word wrong.
“Bravery” is said in many ways, but I believe here it was being used as a synonym for “courage”. “Courage” is a term of virtue, and it does therefore imply some positive normative value. To use it otherwise is to use the word wrong.
What a non-answer.
Or, put differently, I do not understand what you mean by this, could you please explain?
Some words in English have normative value as part of their meaning. To say that someone is “good” is simply an ascription of value, while to say someone is “present” contains no ascription of value; however, to say that someone is “courageous” is both a description of their behavior and a statement that their character and/or actions are virtuous.
Thus, to say (for example) “his courage was vicious” is inconsistent.
ETA: And “is said in many ways” is an Aristotelian idiom roughly meaning “has multiple senses in common use”.
While words have a normative value as part of their common use, I think the reason you’re getting so many down votes for those comments is that “value” is only a behavioral mechanism on our own part. Lots of people ascribe negative or positive values to event X. Great. But that’s just a response in the human brain(s) that observe(s) event X, not a part of event X itself.
And to say that “his courage was vicious”—you know what, I like that. I’m going to look for a way to use that in prose.
I think it’s more likely that I got downvotes because I was 1) telling people they’re using a word wrong, and 2) invoking Aristotelian idioms in a context not friendly to Aristotle.
I’m not concerned.
That really isn’t relevant. The words are also produced by human brains, and are often about value. If you say “good” and mean “bad”, then you’re using the word wrong. At a minimum, that’s bad communication. And some words have “good” or “bad” as part of their meaning. If you don’t want to imply virtue, you can say (for example) “bold” or “fearless” instead of “courageous” (if you want to imply vice, you can say “brash” or “reckless”). There are many words.