I hope you now understand now how it’s not “such a wild thing to say in that context”. Indeed, it’s approximately the same thing you are saying here.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. That’s my bad. Your additional explanation here helps me understand what you were saying. (Readers should feel free to assign me lower status for being so dumb as to misinterpret it the first time!)
The rest of your comment, about ignoring the status implications of one’s speech, is interesting. As you’ve noticed, I am often doing a thing where I deliberately ignore the social implications of my or others’ speech (effectively “declar[ing] defeat” and “pretend[ing] that dimension is [not] there”), but I think this is often a good thing. I’m going to think more carefully about your comment and write another post explaining why I think that.
I still think you have rose-colored glasses about how discussion works—not how it should work, but how it does work—and that this is causing you to make errors. E.g., the habryka quote sounds insane until you reflect on what discourse is actually like. E.g., in the past debate we’ve had you initially said that the moderation debates weren’t about tone, before we got to the harder normative stuff.
It’s probably possible to have your normative views while having a realistic model of how discussions work, but err I guess I think you haven’t reconciled them yet, at least not in, e.g., this post.
E.g., the habryka quote sounds insane until you reflect on what discourse is actually like.
Actually, it still sounds insane to me. I find the top-level comment of this thread to be completely unconvincing, to say the least. (This, despite quite a bit of “reflect[ing] on what discourse is actually like”.)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. That’s my bad. Your additional explanation here helps me understand what you were saying. (Readers should feel free to assign me lower status for being so dumb as to misinterpret it the first time!)
The rest of your comment, about ignoring the status implications of one’s speech, is interesting. As you’ve noticed, I am often doing a thing where I deliberately ignore the social implications of my or others’ speech (effectively “declar[ing] defeat” and “pretend[ing] that dimension is [not] there”), but I think this is often a good thing. I’m going to think more carefully about your comment and write another post explaining why I think that.
I still think you have rose-colored glasses about how discussion works—not how it should work, but how it does work—and that this is causing you to make errors. E.g., the habryka quote sounds insane until you reflect on what discourse is actually like. E.g., in the past debate we’ve had you initially said that the moderation debates weren’t about tone, before we got to the harder normative stuff.
It’s probably possible to have your normative views while having a realistic model of how discussions work, but err I guess I think you haven’t reconciled them yet, at least not in, e.g., this post.
Actually, it still sounds insane to me. I find the top-level comment of this thread to be completely unconvincing, to say the least. (This, despite quite a bit of “reflect[ing] on what discourse is actually like”.)