"Economist Robin Hanson, rather than reacting to this news like a normal human, decided that … lesson to really be learned here is that there must be a `redistribution of sex.'" No, I compared policies to cut sex & income inequality, but support none of.https://wonkette.com/633206/the-week-in-garbage-men-incels-sympathizers-make-case-for-redistribution-of-vaginas …
-
That is, frankly, an asinine approach. Truth can only be expressed in language and language is inherently a matter of "how will this be received". You cannot separate the two.
That's like saying that pizza and love are the same, because we talk about them both with words. I'm sorry that you are so lost in the world of spin that you find it incomprehensible that language could be used to describe a search for objective truth.
-
-
I'm sorry, but that is a completely idiotic reply that doesn't grapple with what I said at all. Of course you can use language as part of a search for truth. But you can't communicate any truth without regard to how your words will be understood.
-
You can communicate with a focus on logical meaning, rather than being hamstrung by working around associational thinking. Avoiding triggers & misinterpretation takes many more words, and is sometimes impossible (ie subjects taboo to even mention)
-
If you haven't avoided misinterpretation then you've failed. It doesn't matter how 'logical' you think you are - you have not communicated what you meant to communicate. Complaining that it takes 'many more words' is basically complaining that communication is hard.
-
And no subject is so 'taboo' that skilled and considerate writers can't find a way to address it with the appropriate tone. All you're doing here is making excuses for bad writing by citing purity of intent.
-
"Appropriate tone" and "consideration" not only take time and special skills, but are antithetical to the search for truth. A mind focused on "what will people think" cannot focus on "what is true". If you want to understand this, read a lot more
@ESYudkowsky -
This is a fun edgy take, but untrue. There are real opportunity costs for serious consideration of lots of arguments, and potential harms from considering ideas capable of damage. Besides, "rationalists" and "rationalist"-adjacents tend to pay edgy ideas excess attention
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.