new Sin I've noticed: using shitty (weak) arguments for things Spose you have some preference or normative belief, and you try to justify a policy implied by this belief using a transparently (to someone who doesnt share your preference) dumb argument with a positive component
-
Show this thread
-
it seems likely that this will have a few effects dumb people or disinterested people might be swayed, absent pushback from an opponent attentive or opposed people will correctly judge you to be acting dishonestly and dishonorably, and be likely to discount your other claims
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
people in your ingroup will feel obliged to defend your stupid fucking argument when its inevitably (correctly) attacked as dumb by outgroup folks, making them complicit in your Sin the outgroup will feel obliged to respond with their own dumb arguments prisoners dilemma style
4 replies 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
very quickly everything becomes very dumb i guess this is just the human condition in conclusion, Become Epicurean i guess
5 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @eigenrobot
actually: I suspect this is the process by which moral mutation might happen in an Open subject, and thus realistically the only way someone who is e.g. a busybody bioconservative might Become Good. They have to enter a world in which they can defend an alien-to-them argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AmbrosialArts @eigenrobot
Because, as you noted: "transparently (to someone who doesnt share your preference) dumb argument" Remember: all your preferences about ~Epicureanism~ et alia are preferences in the end, and yes, to someone sufficiently Outside them, they seem transparently dumb.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
masquerobot Retweeted masquerobot
masquerobot added,
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.
