I agree that the situation you’re describing is somewhat halo-defense-y rationally-defensible, in the spirit of ruling thinkers in, instead of out.
I think you read something into my comment that I did not mean. I did not mean to say that less people should be kicked out. I’m making no comment on that either way. I’m just saying that if someone disagrees with the criteria for what is a unforgivable act, and it’s taboo to argue over what should be forgivable, then they may (on the surface) argue over the facts instead, which may look like halo defense.
Specifically, there is a discussion about if person A has done [unforgivable thing]. Person B don’t think [unforgivable thing] should be unforgivable, but just a normal bad thing, that can be forgiven if A has enough other good qualities. Person B thinks that probably a lot of people agree with them, but no-one can admit that they think [unforgivable thing] is not infinitely bad, without large social risk. So instead person B gestures at all the reason we would all like to keep person A around, and suggest we pretend that person A did not do [unforgivable thing].
Regarding how much of halo-defense-y stuff is something like what you’re describing: IDK. At least on the spot, I’m finding it hard to come up with examples of “healthy halo defense” from my own experience and observation, but can easily generate more examples of the “unhealthy” type. The healthy kind[1] is coherent/plausible, but IDK to what extent it actually instantiates.
I’m not saying halo-defense is healthy. It’s not. I’m saying it might be a symptom of a different problem, which means you’d have to solve that problem to get rid of halo-defense.
I misunderstood you, at least connotationally. Thanks for the clarification. Regarding your main object-level point:
I’m saying it might be a symptom of a different problem, which means you’d have to solve that problem to get rid of halo-defense.
Interesting. To be honest, I don’t know. Probably a representative dataset of halo defense-like dynamics spotted in the wild would be needed to answer this question.
I think you read something into my comment that I did not mean. I did not mean to say that less people should be kicked out. I’m making no comment on that either way. I’m just saying that if someone disagrees with the criteria for what is a unforgivable act, and it’s taboo to argue over what should be forgivable, then they may (on the surface) argue over the facts instead, which may look like halo defense.
Specifically, there is a discussion about if person A has done [unforgivable thing]. Person B don’t think [unforgivable thing] should be unforgivable, but just a normal bad thing, that can be forgiven if A has enough other good qualities. Person B thinks that probably a lot of people agree with them, but no-one can admit that they think [unforgivable thing] is not infinitely bad, without large social risk. So instead person B gestures at all the reason we would all like to keep person A around, and suggest we pretend that person A did not do [unforgivable thing].
I’m not saying halo-defense is healthy. It’s not. I’m saying it might be a symptom of a different problem, which means you’d have to solve that problem to get rid of halo-defense.
I misunderstood you, at least connotationally. Thanks for the clarification. Regarding your main object-level point:
Interesting. To be honest, I don’t know. Probably a representative dataset of halo defense-like dynamics spotted in the wild would be needed to answer this question.