I recall an early couple of comments I made on vegetarianism on LessWrong. The first was a mildly snarky variation of my opinion of what was wrong with a line of reasoning. The second was a rather graphic depiction of one logical conclusion of that line of reasoning. I was worried the snark might be down-voted, but it was instead up-voted rather heavily. The graphic depiction which I thought was much more direct ended up being down-voted rather heavily. I still don’t fully understand the norms of discussion at LW.
Phil Robertson may have been correct based on Philosophy norms of debate, but he was incorrect based on popular media norms of debate. I think it’s generally better to follow the norms even when you disagree than to go against them. There’s a whole bunch of research on this that I think I have a decent understanding of, but this would probably require a comprehensive review. It’s a shame popular media is of such a generally poor quality, but Phil Robertson should have known better.
I recall an early couple of comments I made on vegetarianism on LessWrong. The first was a mildly snarky variation of my opinion of what was wrong with a line of reasoning. The second was a rather graphic depiction of one logical conclusion of that line of reasoning. I was worried the snark might be down-voted, but it was instead up-voted rather heavily. The graphic depiction which I thought was much more direct ended up being down-voted rather heavily. I still don’t fully understand the norms of discussion at LW.
Phil Robertson may have been correct based on Philosophy norms of debate, but he was incorrect based on popular media norms of debate. I think it’s generally better to follow the norms even when you disagree than to go against them. There’s a whole bunch of research on this that I think I have a decent understanding of, but this would probably require a comprehensive review. It’s a shame popular media is of such a generally poor quality, but Phil Robertson should have known better.