Hm, thanks for the feedback. You might be right that couching any criticism I have in a ton of fake humbleness might be necessary to make me seem less confrontational. I’d much rather be honest about what I actually feel, though.
Anyway, I think it’s interesting that I make a post about certain parties being crazier than others, and everyone concludes that I mean the republican party.
Largely for the same reason that, when someone makes a comment about the downfall of social mores over the last fifty years, it’s going to get a comment about listening to conservative talk radio. There are certain ideas that—no matter how unique and individual your method of getting to them are—happen to have five or six decimal places worth of correlation with particular ideologies and listening to other particular sources.
Fake humbleness might be better than no humbleness. But I’d actually recommend a degree of genuine humbleness. If you’re not open to the possibility that the policies you support are the crazy ones and the people who you disagree with are right then I wouldn’t want you discussing politics on Less Wrong either. If you want to discuss politics just so you can correct the views of others, that sounds really terrible.
Doesn’t that strongly imply that everyone on Less Wrong thinks on some level that Republicans are crazy?
I think it strongly implies everyone on Less Wrong has a decent model of the average European’s politics and common political rhetoric in general.
Oh, but I am genuinely humble about things I am uncertain about. A lot of actual politics, such as economics, are sufficiently complex that I dare not have too strong an opinion about them. The same does not hold for evolution being real, or boys kissing being okay, or global warming being a thing, or a hundred of other things that people have somehow decided is political. I do not see why I have to pretend to be uncertain about subjects merely because someone said “it’s political now guys, everyone pretend you know nothing”. It frustrated me at school when I could not defend gay kids without being called gay myself. It frustrates me on Less Wrong that I cannot call certain views crazy without being called leftist.
If Less Wrong would admit that a lot of Republican held views are simply crazy, and fairly distributed criticism of craziness regardless of political allegiance so it’s not just Republicans that get criticized… I would be more than okay with this.
It frustrates me on Less Wrong that I cannot call certain views crazy without being called leftist
If one called religion “crazy”, one would be likely to be an atheist. And if an American lists a bunch of Republican views and call them all crazy, without doing anything similar about any Democrat-held view I’d consider them likely to be a Democrat (or a libertarian but, since you seem to dislike libertarianism, that’s unlikely in your case).
On my part, it frustrates me that you see calling certain views “crazy” as supposedly being dissent or an argument. No! Calling a different view “crazy” without any argument about why, is a status game—it’s an attempt to shut down dissent by deliberately lowering the status of the people that even attempt to discuss the issue.
i.e. they aren’t just in really strong disagreement with you (something which would put them on an equal level), they are insane wackos, and nobody sane could possibly hold any doubt about the issue, or worse yet defend the views, or worse yet share them. It’s an attempt to throw said views outside the Overton window.
On my part I’m actually sympathetic about such status games. I’m a progressive. I wish that e.g. neonazism in Greece had been destroyed, and same with lots of other vile crazy views. I don’t want to discuss with Greek neonazis, I want them utterly destroyed and thrown out of any political discussion completely.
But you seek the same about your political opponents (seemingly Republicans), while also seemingly denying you so seek it.
People on LessWrong, however, have the ability to recognize status games when they see them.
Right, so as ArisKatsaris says: calling something crazy without an argument is a status game. I suspect if you actually dived into the issues themselves you wouldn’t be that far away from even the most reactionary people on this site. I don’t think anyone here doesn’t believe in evolution. I don’t think anyone has strong moral issues with homosexuality—though you might hear some descriptive analyses of the cause and nature of homosexuality you might not like. “global warming being a thing” is trickier: since there are several sub-claims within it. Plus, this is a place where people like to question scientists. I mean, there is no way there aren’t large minorities here who disagree with scientific consensuses in nutrition science, pharmacology and psychology. Climate science needn’t be special.
But the issue is that you’re not actually arguing these points, you’re just waving a flag. You can tell just by the way you phrased them: “global warming being a thing” , “boys kissing being okay”. It shuts down discussion about these issues because you’ve construed them such that anyone who wants to, say, question the widespread hyperbole when Democrats discuss global warming or talk about how homosexuality can’t possibly be genetic now has to take a status hit as a result of taking the side you’ve construed has “crazy”.
it’s interesting that I make a post about certain parties being crazier than others, and everyone concludes that I mean the republican party. Doesn’t that strongly imply that everyone on Less Wrong thinks on some level that Republicans are crazy?
That is a possible explanation, indeed.
Another possible explanation could be that everyone on LessWrong thinks that saying “my enemies are crazy” without providing specific arguments why is how Democrats typically speak. (Or perhaps that a Republican would likely use some other word, such as “godless” or “commie”.) In which case, it’s a simple logical deduction that if author speaks like a Democrat, his supposedly crazy enemies are most likely Republicans.
Yet another possible explanation could be that majority of American LW readers are pro-Democrats, therefore “crazy enemies” of a random person (in context of speaking of USA’s two major political parties, which excludes Libertarians etc.) are most likely Republicans.
I’m not endorsing any of these views here; just saying that all of these are plausible explanations why someone might guess you meant Republicans, and the other explanations are not evidence for Republicans being crazy.
A different example: If you meet a guy on the street and he starts talking to you about “inferior races”, are you able to guess whom he meant? Does your ability to guess correctly imply that you agree with him?
I’m intrigued by your usage of “yield the point” in this context. Do you feel that the more likely interpretations proposed by others in this matter takes away something of value from you?
It feels really disingenuous though, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to have to ask those questions and pretend I don’t know the answers just because it makes me seem less confrontational.
LessWrong isn’t terribly off-put by confrontation, it’s the idea that is voted on.
Hm, thanks for the feedback. You might be right that couching any criticism I have in a ton of fake humbleness might be necessary to make me seem less confrontational. I’d much rather be honest about what I actually feel, though.
(Rest of post retracted, agree with criticism)
Largely for the same reason that, when someone makes a comment about the downfall of social mores over the last fifty years, it’s going to get a comment about listening to conservative talk radio. There are certain ideas that—no matter how unique and individual your method of getting to them are—happen to have five or six decimal places worth of correlation with particular ideologies and listening to other particular sources.
Fake humbleness might be better than no humbleness. But I’d actually recommend a degree of genuine humbleness. If you’re not open to the possibility that the policies you support are the crazy ones and the people who you disagree with are right then I wouldn’t want you discussing politics on Less Wrong either. If you want to discuss politics just so you can correct the views of others, that sounds really terrible.
I think it strongly implies everyone on Less Wrong has a decent model of the average European’s politics and common political rhetoric in general.
Oh, but I am genuinely humble about things I am uncertain about. A lot of actual politics, such as economics, are sufficiently complex that I dare not have too strong an opinion about them. The same does not hold for evolution being real, or boys kissing being okay, or global warming being a thing, or a hundred of other things that people have somehow decided is political. I do not see why I have to pretend to be uncertain about subjects merely because someone said “it’s political now guys, everyone pretend you know nothing”. It frustrated me at school when I could not defend gay kids without being called gay myself. It frustrates me on Less Wrong that I cannot call certain views crazy without being called leftist.
If Less Wrong would admit that a lot of Republican held views are simply crazy, and fairly distributed criticism of craziness regardless of political allegiance so it’s not just Republicans that get criticized… I would be more than okay with this.
If one called religion “crazy”, one would be likely to be an atheist. And if an American lists a bunch of Republican views and call them all crazy, without doing anything similar about any Democrat-held view I’d consider them likely to be a Democrat (or a libertarian but, since you seem to dislike libertarianism, that’s unlikely in your case).
On my part, it frustrates me that you see calling certain views “crazy” as supposedly being dissent or an argument. No! Calling a different view “crazy” without any argument about why, is a status game—it’s an attempt to shut down dissent by deliberately lowering the status of the people that even attempt to discuss the issue.
i.e. they aren’t just in really strong disagreement with you (something which would put them on an equal level), they are insane wackos, and nobody sane could possibly hold any doubt about the issue, or worse yet defend the views, or worse yet share them. It’s an attempt to throw said views outside the Overton window.
On my part I’m actually sympathetic about such status games. I’m a progressive. I wish that e.g. neonazism in Greece had been destroyed, and same with lots of other vile crazy views. I don’t want to discuss with Greek neonazis, I want them utterly destroyed and thrown out of any political discussion completely.
But you seek the same about your political opponents (seemingly Republicans), while also seemingly denying you so seek it.
People on LessWrong, however, have the ability to recognize status games when they see them.
Right, so as ArisKatsaris says: calling something crazy without an argument is a status game. I suspect if you actually dived into the issues themselves you wouldn’t be that far away from even the most reactionary people on this site. I don’t think anyone here doesn’t believe in evolution. I don’t think anyone has strong moral issues with homosexuality—though you might hear some descriptive analyses of the cause and nature of homosexuality you might not like. “global warming being a thing” is trickier: since there are several sub-claims within it. Plus, this is a place where people like to question scientists. I mean, there is no way there aren’t large minorities here who disagree with scientific consensuses in nutrition science, pharmacology and psychology. Climate science needn’t be special.
But the issue is that you’re not actually arguing these points, you’re just waving a flag. You can tell just by the way you phrased them: “global warming being a thing” , “boys kissing being okay”. It shuts down discussion about these issues because you’ve construed them such that anyone who wants to, say, question the widespread hyperbole when Democrats discuss global warming or talk about how homosexuality can’t possibly be genetic now has to take a status hit as a result of taking the side you’ve construed has “crazy”.
That is a possible explanation, indeed.
Another possible explanation could be that everyone on LessWrong thinks that saying “my enemies are crazy” without providing specific arguments why is how Democrats typically speak. (Or perhaps that a Republican would likely use some other word, such as “godless” or “commie”.) In which case, it’s a simple logical deduction that if author speaks like a Democrat, his supposedly crazy enemies are most likely Republicans.
Yet another possible explanation could be that majority of American LW readers are pro-Democrats, therefore “crazy enemies” of a random person (in context of speaking of USA’s two major political parties, which excludes Libertarians etc.) are most likely Republicans.
I’m not endorsing any of these views here; just saying that all of these are plausible explanations why someone might guess you meant Republicans, and the other explanations are not evidence for Republicans being crazy.
A different example: If you meet a guy on the street and he starts talking to you about “inferior races”, are you able to guess whom he meant? Does your ability to guess correctly imply that you agree with him?
I will yield the point made by you and several others that yes, other interpretations are possible and in fact more likely.
I’m intrigued by your usage of “yield the point” in this context. Do you feel that the more likely interpretations proposed by others in this matter takes away something of value from you?
LessWrong isn’t terribly off-put by confrontation, it’s the idea that is voted on.