@GrumplessGrinch @St_Rev Going back to OP - forget "enforcement" for the time being and focus on "expression". Can value expression oppress?
-
-
@St_Rev@schakalsynthetc@GrumplessGrinch@cwage ^-- liberal metanorm against enforcing certain classes of norms. Unusual beast. -
@simplic10@schakalsynthetc@GrumplessGrinch@cwage Unusual in the context of a dominant universalizing ideology, maybe. -
@St_Rev@schakalsynthetc@GrumplessGrinch@cwage Sure, I don't mean unusual = bad. -
@St_Rev@schakalsynthetc@GrumplessGrinch@cwage Q: what is the point of emitting the noise "Polygamy is wrong?" What does it accomplish? -
@simplic10@schakalsynthetc@GrumplessGrinch@cwage Have you heard me say it before today? -
@St_Rev@schakalsynthetc@GrumplessGrinch@cwage In those words, no. But yes, knew you had low opinion of it. - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@St_Rev@simplic10@GrumplessGrinch@cwage well, ok, here my only problem is with "is wrong", it's overloaded and equivocal. > -
@St_Rev@simplic10@GrumplessGrinch@cwage < instead: 1. "x is a bad idea." 2. "I'd like it if you didn't x." 3. "I want you not to x." -
@St_Rev@simplic10@GrumplessGrinch@cwage the first form isn't really a simple normative, it's a (covert) claim about cause and effect. -
@St_Rev@simplic10@GrumplessGrinch@cwage "x is wrong" usually rolls up these three and equivocates, all I'm saying is unpack it -
@St_Rev@GrumplessGrinch@cwage 3 obviously meets@simplic10's definition of implying willingness (or at least desire) to alter how you act -
@St_Rev so parsed that way your reply is "x is wrong" doesn't require sense 3, which is perfectly true@GrumplessGrinch@cwage@simplic10 -
@St_Rev@GrumplessGrinch@cwage restricted to sense 3@simplic10's original statement is tautology
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.