I mean, this isn't "the 2010s" - this is all human culture ever. Associative thinking is our natural disposition - getting round it takes care and consideration, which is where Robin has gone wrong.
-
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
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're now just parroting your earlier formulation as if saying it a second time makes it any less specious. You cannot communicate effectively without consideration of how it will be received, and if you aren't communicating effectively, you're not getting at any truth.
-
There are two kinds of consideration in communication being talked about here. Consideration for clarity and articulateness of ones ideas and also consideration of the feelings and emotional response of the audience. I think everyone would agree with the first but not the second.
-
The two are also linked though, as someone who has a strong emotional response to a premise would be far less likely to engage with the ideas constructively. Consideration for emotions may be anti-truth in some circumstances and I would say demonstrably so.
-
I don't think we're discussing the feelings and emotional responses here - we're discussing inference by association. That falls into your first category. The argument being made by Patri is that it is somehow impossible/inefficient to account for this.
-
Specifically, we're talking about a blog post where Robin treats sex as analogous and income and expects people not to infer from this that he believes sex can be regarded as a commodity that is 'owned' by women and distributed by them to men.
-
I don't believe it's in any way beyond the ability of an experienced writer to raise whatever questions they find pertinent in their quest for 'the truth' without making such an unfortunate inference entirely inevitable.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Focusing on what is true doesn't require writing. Writing, on the other hand, would assume a reader (unless never intended for publication), which assumes an intention to influence what the reader thinks.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I appreciate what you've done Robin, you've inspired people to think. And I think as someone who is an Incel, you've inspired me to want to speak out about the more positive side of our movement.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.