I’m saying that a statement that black people ‘were treated unfairly’ ‘not so long ago’ implies a basic ignorance of the way black people still are treated
Perhaps you should not be so quick to assume my ignorance. If I say something that can be interpreted multiple ways, interpret it in the most charitable way possible.
Racism was certainly worse fifty or a hundred years ago than it is today. And, more specifically, it used to be commonly accepted that black people weren’t as intelligent as white people. Today, many people (e.g. Gould) specifically try to avoid any facts that might give credence to this belief. I did not mean to imply that racism is entirely eliminated.
Communication is a two-way road (to a first approximation). You have chosen a particularly poor way to word this sentence. It is, except in the most pedantic sense, incorrect. Likewise, I would not say “women shouldn’t have the right to vote” if I meant that I opposed democratic government in general, and if I did say this it would be my fault if I were ‘misinterpreted’.
Your statement “not so long ago, African-Americans were treated unfairly” can’t sensibly be interpreted multiple ways. What you meant to say might have multiple interpretations, but what you actually said can only be interpreted one way, unless one is to distort the words past all reason.
“more specifically, it used to be commonly accepted that black people weren’t as intelligent as white people.”
I’m unfortunately unable to find any surveys which show to what extent this is still believed by people today, but my impression is that this is still a far more commonly-held belief than you think.
“And if you downvote my comment, please explain why.”
Well, in this case, I’m downvoting because you’re whining, because you made an assumption about who downvoted you based on little evidence, and because you’ve written a post that doesn’t say what you now claim you intended it to say and are now blaming the readers for your own mistake.
How so? I thought my comments were sufficiently polite and formal.
because you made an assumption about who downvoted you based on little evidence
By “you” I didn’t mean AndrewHickey, I just meant anyone reading the comment.
and because you’ve written a post that doesn’t say what you now claim you intended it to say and are now blaming the readers for your own mistake.
I never blamed the readers. I admit that I worded it poorly. I didn’t effectively communicate my meaning, so I posted comments to clarify. I’ll try to rewrite my original post to more effectively express my intent.
Edit: I don’t see how to edit my post—I do not see any “edit” button like the one on my comments. So I won’t be editing it unless I figure out how.
I don’t see how to edit my post—I do not see any “edit” button like the one on my comments. So I won’t be editing it unless I figure out how.
At the bottom of your post you should see an icon that looks like a piece of paper with a pencil on it. Click that to edit your post.
EDIT: Oops. Just realized that you already know how to edit comments, so you probably know about the icon. The fact that it isn’t appearing on your post might be a glitch then.
I guess you’re right, I did blame the readers. Sorry about that. I don’t think it’s your fault, really. It’s primarily my fault for writing a sentence that did not effectively express my intention.
Edit: I was just thinking about why I said I wasn’t blaming anyone, and I think the reason is that I didn’t feel like I was blaming anyone, even though I really was. I thought (only semi-consciously) that since I know what I meant, you should also know what I meant. Of course, the only way for that to work is if I express myself clearly, which I obviously didn’t.
I don’t know. If I thought the sentence would lead to confusion, I would have written it differently. It’s hard to judge how much other people will understand my own writing because I understand it perfectly, and I don’t know how much common background I share with most others.
And if you downvote my comment, please explain why. I am just trying to clarify my position and I do not understand why that merits a downvote.
Welcome to lesswrong. Calling this part of the site “discussion” is some sort of euphemism if you measure acceptability by lack of downvotes. You’ll get some people explaining why they prefer a board that doesn’t include discussions from people who aren’t even aware yet what the kool-aid contains, which is nice of them.
In simpler terms, there are a broad range of hypotheses which will receive a lot of downvotes. You might think, as I did, that 1) if you hold some of these ideas, a section of the website called “discussion” would be a good place to “discuss” these things. 2) You might also think that a significant negative votes are meant to flag posts that “shouldn’t” be here. In my opinion, someone who wishes to discuss things as I do, and it seemed from this post as you do, cannot continue to believe both 1) and 2).
In summary, you can expect significant downvotes if you post positively about any ideas from a rather long but unpublished list of ideas. If you wish to discuss these ideas, you can do it here but you will be downvoted. If you wish to discuss these ideas without being downvoted, you MIGHT be able to do it here, but it will be like discussing whether Jesus exists with a Jesuit priest: you must pay lip service respect to the ideas you are questioning constantly, and can still expect to be told that until you have read the bible and St. Thomas you are only polluting the discussion and (presumably) endangering the souls of other readers with your basilisky ideas.
Google basilisk if you don’t already know what it is.
Perhaps you should not be so quick to assume my ignorance. If I say something that can be interpreted multiple ways, interpret it in the most charitable way possible.
Racism was certainly worse fifty or a hundred years ago than it is today. And, more specifically, it used to be commonly accepted that black people weren’t as intelligent as white people. Today, many people (e.g. Gould) specifically try to avoid any facts that might give credence to this belief. I did not mean to imply that racism is entirely eliminated.
On Saying the Obvious
And if you downvote my comment, please explain why. I am just trying to clarify my position and I do not understand why that merits a downvote.
Communication is a two-way road (to a first approximation). You have chosen a particularly poor way to word this sentence. It is, except in the most pedantic sense, incorrect. Likewise, I would not say “women shouldn’t have the right to vote” if I meant that I opposed democratic government in general, and if I did say this it would be my fault if I were ‘misinterpreted’.
Your statement “not so long ago, African-Americans were treated unfairly” can’t sensibly be interpreted multiple ways. What you meant to say might have multiple interpretations, but what you actually said can only be interpreted one way, unless one is to distort the words past all reason.
“more specifically, it used to be commonly accepted that black people weren’t as intelligent as white people.” I’m unfortunately unable to find any surveys which show to what extent this is still believed by people today, but my impression is that this is still a far more commonly-held belief than you think.
“And if you downvote my comment, please explain why.” Well, in this case, I’m downvoting because you’re whining, because you made an assumption about who downvoted you based on little evidence, and because you’ve written a post that doesn’t say what you now claim you intended it to say and are now blaming the readers for your own mistake.
How so? I thought my comments were sufficiently polite and formal.
By “you” I didn’t mean AndrewHickey, I just meant anyone reading the comment.
I never blamed the readers. I admit that I worded it poorly. I didn’t effectively communicate my meaning, so I posted comments to clarify. I’ll try to rewrite my original post to more effectively express my intent.
Edit: I don’t see how to edit my post—I do not see any “edit” button like the one on my comments. So I won’t be editing it unless I figure out how.
At the bottom of your post you should see an icon that looks like a piece of paper with a pencil on it. Click that to edit your post.
EDIT: Oops. Just realized that you already know how to edit comments, so you probably know about the icon. The fact that it isn’t appearing on your post might be a glitch then.
I looked for that button earlier and didn’t see it, but I see it now. So either I missed it, or it disappeared for some reason.
But it looks like I still can’t edit it because I no longer have permission to post in Main. I guess I’ll move it to Discussion....
You definitely can edit your posts. Hover over buttons one will say edit. Make sure you are logged in to the site when doing it.
“Perhaps you should not be so quick to assume my ignorance.”
“I never blamed the readers.”
I guess you’re right, I did blame the readers. Sorry about that. I don’t think it’s your fault, really. It’s primarily my fault for writing a sentence that did not effectively express my intention.
Edit: I was just thinking about why I said I wasn’t blaming anyone, and I think the reason is that I didn’t feel like I was blaming anyone, even though I really was. I thought (only semi-consciously) that since I know what I meant, you should also know what I meant. Of course, the only way for that to work is if I express myself clearly, which I obviously didn’t.
For every one hickey, what do you suppose is the number of readers who have no problem understanding what you wrote?
Lesswrong is far from monolithic, and it is a mistake to think AndrewHIckey speaks for the whole of it.
I don’t know. If I thought the sentence would lead to confusion, I would have written it differently. It’s hard to judge how much other people will understand my own writing because I understand it perfectly, and I don’t know how much common background I share with most others.
Did you understand it?
Welcome to lesswrong. Calling this part of the site “discussion” is some sort of euphemism if you measure acceptability by lack of downvotes. You’ll get some people explaining why they prefer a board that doesn’t include discussions from people who aren’t even aware yet what the kool-aid contains, which is nice of them.
Sorry, could you rephrase that? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
In simpler terms, there are a broad range of hypotheses which will receive a lot of downvotes. You might think, as I did, that 1) if you hold some of these ideas, a section of the website called “discussion” would be a good place to “discuss” these things. 2) You might also think that a significant negative votes are meant to flag posts that “shouldn’t” be here. In my opinion, someone who wishes to discuss things as I do, and it seemed from this post as you do, cannot continue to believe both 1) and 2).
In summary, you can expect significant downvotes if you post positively about any ideas from a rather long but unpublished list of ideas. If you wish to discuss these ideas, you can do it here but you will be downvoted. If you wish to discuss these ideas without being downvoted, you MIGHT be able to do it here, but it will be like discussing whether Jesus exists with a Jesuit priest: you must pay lip service respect to the ideas you are questioning constantly, and can still expect to be told that until you have read the bible and St. Thomas you are only polluting the discussion and (presumably) endangering the souls of other readers with your basilisky ideas.
Google basilisk if you don’t already know what it is.