I agree with most of this post, but you seem to have an implicit assumption that the good and the just should be promoted. An alternate view would be to promote what is true in any area regardless of utility.
The reason for said view would be that replacing rational with irrational beliefs in anything, regardless of direct utility, improves the sanity waterline and thus has minor benefits. Therefore any post which overthrows irrational views and replaces them with rational, no matter how irrelevant the subject matter, does more good than harm.
… unless promoting said view has other costs which exceed the value gained by it’s contribution to the sanity waterline. The recent posting by Josh Elders on ‘celibate pedophelia’ is a prime example of this issue, where there was a non-trivial cost associated with having the article even present on LW.
It’s hard for me to respond now given that the post appears not to be there any more. Could you clarify by explaining the content of the article and what problems it caused?
The post used a lot of words to say very little of interest (I think it was things along the lines of “Vg’f nccnerag gb zr gung zbfg crbcyr jub ner frkhnyyl nggenpgrq gb puvyqera qba’g zbyrfg gurz, vg’f whfg gung lbh bayl urne nobhg gur barf jub qb” and “vg’f boivbhf gung encvat n puvyq uhegf gurz, ohg vg’f abg boivbhf gb zr jul cresbezvat frk npgf jvgu n puvyq jub nterrf gb qb vg vf vaureragyl unezshy”) and reading it made me feel uncomfortable.
I used rot-13 because we don’t want Google keyword searches to turn up any unfortunate associations.
The post used a lot of words to say very little of interest
Well, it generated some interesting discussion in the comments.
reading it made me feel uncomfortable
What about it made you feel uncomfortable? It’s arguments aren’t that difficult to refute (and were refuted in the comments); however, the refutations also apply to a number of other popular beliefs. I suspect it’s this fact that is the real source of discomfort.
I agree with most of this post, but you seem to have an implicit assumption that the good and the just should be promoted. An alternate view would be to promote what is true in any area regardless of utility.
I was being facetious about the political discussion pattern where everyone thinks it’s a foregone conclusion that their beliefs side up with good and justice and they can just proceed to trying to win the rest of the argument as a battle.
I agree with most of this post, but you seem to have an implicit assumption that the good and the just should be promoted. An alternate view would be to promote what is true in any area regardless of utility.
The reason for said view would be that replacing rational with irrational beliefs in anything, regardless of direct utility, improves the sanity waterline and thus has minor benefits. Therefore any post which overthrows irrational views and replaces them with rational, no matter how irrelevant the subject matter, does more good than harm.
… unless promoting said view has other costs which exceed the value gained by it’s contribution to the sanity waterline. The recent posting by Josh Elders on ‘celibate pedophelia’ is a prime example of this issue, where there was a non-trivial cost associated with having the article even present on LW.
It’s hard for me to respond now given that the post appears not to be there any more. Could you clarify by explaining the content of the article and what problems it caused?
The post used a lot of words to say very little of interest (I think it was things along the lines of “Vg’f nccnerag gb zr gung zbfg crbcyr jub ner frkhnyyl nggenpgrq gb puvyqera qba’g zbyrfg gurz, vg’f whfg gung lbh bayl urne nobhg gur barf jub qb” and “vg’f boivbhf gung encvat n puvyq uhegf gurz, ohg vg’f abg boivbhf gb zr jul cresbezvat frk npgf jvgu n puvyq jub nterrf gb qb vg vf vaureragyl unezshy”) and reading it made me feel uncomfortable.
I used rot-13 because we don’t want Google keyword searches to turn up any unfortunate associations.
Well, it generated some interesting discussion in the comments.
What about it made you feel uncomfortable? It’s arguments aren’t that difficult to refute (and were refuted in the comments); however, the refutations also apply to a number of other popular beliefs. I suspect it’s this fact that is the real source of discomfort.
I was being facetious about the political discussion pattern where everyone thinks it’s a foregone conclusion that their beliefs side up with good and justice and they can just proceed to trying to win the rest of the argument as a battle.