"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 …
-
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 - 1 more reply
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.