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
-
Show 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 @cunningcorvid @eigenrobot
In fact, I will double-down and say this is almost certainly how it works for most normies on the discourse! Remember, not long ago, anti-gay sentiment was okay to just straight up express. It didn't get the pushback it does even in right-conservative circles. What happened?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
A large part of the massive preference cascade was children coming to their parents and saying, "Hi dad, I'm gay." and getting tearful and confused answers of "Hi gay, I'm dad." And now they had a choice, they were faced with defending the inconceivable or rejecting family.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Many of whom remained anti-gay right up until Obergefell vs. Hodges changed the law of the land, functionally, and then they had to incorporate THAT... the idea that they lived and felt vague patriotic thoughts about... a country that normalized and accepted gay marriage.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AmbrosialArts @cunningcorvid
hmmm I think we might be talking about two different things? or are you saying: people need dumb arguments available to justify their moral shifts to themselves? (this does seem true maybe)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @cunningcorvid
I am saying basically the kind of transparently dumb arguments you're talking about can become moral turning points. And that a "transparently dumb" argument is often one founded on a Haidtian moral foundation that you don't have (or only hold very weakly). For instance, Volk.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
yeah, I feel you hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm tfw too robotic too correctly model hoomans, beep boop
-
-
Replying to @cunningcorvid @eigenrobot
yes, I'm being contentious because I noticed him picking out generalized mechanisms for a preference cascade and wanted to point out that this thing swings both ways.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AmbrosialArts @cunningcorvid
didn't read as contentious, I thought it was helpful more to mull ^^
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.