Setting aside questions of appropriateness, which can include concerns about hurt feelings and community health, is the connection I was drawing between the Obligated to Respond post and the “800 pound gorilla” comment relevant, accurate, or illuminating?
No. The “if —> then” of the comment is valid, in that if your characterization were at all reasonable, then yes, that would in fact be relevant contextual information for the reader, just as it’s important for, I dunno, readers of various books on polyamory to know that the authors have failed marriages and abuse accusations.
But the “if” doesn’t hold, making the leap to the “then” moot. And although the paragraph starts with a gesture in the direction of split-and-commit (“I would posit that if you mean this literally”) it does not proceed to act as if both possibilities are live; it clearly focuses on the one possibility that it presupposes is true.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPv4sYrKnPzeJASuk/basics-of-rationalist-discourse-1#10__Hold_yourself_to_the_absolute_highest_standard_when_directly_modeling_or_assessing_others__internal_states__values__and_thought_processes_
No. The “if —> then” of the comment is valid, in that if your characterization were at all reasonable, then yes, that would in fact be relevant contextual information for the reader, just as it’s important for, I dunno, readers of various books on polyamory to know that the authors have failed marriages and abuse accusations.
But the “if” doesn’t hold, making the leap to the “then” moot. And although the paragraph starts with a gesture in the direction of split-and-commit (“I would posit that if you mean this literally”) it does not proceed to act as if both possibilities are live; it clearly focuses on the one possibility that it presupposes is true.