Well, it’s my own verdict, with which you’re welcome to agree or disagree. But even without getting into any substantive issues from these discussions, consider this. In the past, these topics have many times led to a breakdown of rational discourse. If this no longer happens, what is the more plausible explanation: that LW has somehow suddenly and collectively figured out a way to discuss these topics rationally, or that people are simply tired of the same old unproductive clashes so that nobody even bothers to challenge the happy death spirals?
If any people think it’s the former, I’d really be curious about their hypotheses on what caused this sudden change for the better.
I wouldn’t want to point fingers at people this way even if we were talking about unambiguous and agreed-upon instances of errors, let alone in cases like this, where it would open whole cans of worms. It would look like I’m being confrontational against individuals, rather than pointing out a general problem.
On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to ask my above question in this context. Given the previous history of discussions about this topic, what is the reason to consider the first explanation as more probable than the second? (And what would be the cause of the change assumed by the first one?)
In the past, these topics have many times led to a breakdown of rational discourse. If this no longer happens, what is the more plausible explanation: that LW has somehow suddenly and collectively figured out a way to discuss these topics rationally, or that people are simply tired of the same old unproductive clashes so that nobody even bothers to challenge the happy death spirals?
The third alternative is to try things differently. It’s not helpful to make no effort and then ask “Have things magically changed, or will this fail?”
I like to, when possible, jump on unsubstantiated accusations and ask for evidence, rather than argue about opinions. We can make progress by better applying the norm that accusations against people on LW need evidence and examples of at least possible wrongdoing.
what is the reason to consider the first explanation as more probable than the second?
If the first explanation is even fairly likely, it’s worth not suggesting suppressing a topic. Greater probability is not necessary.
A tub of bathwater so dirty it’s worth throwing out the baby?
Perhaps, if the baby is handed off to caring adopted parents and is freed from abusive, incompetent parents with dangerously substandard hygene practices.
(That’s how the metaphor would represent the case in which individuals were saved from learning false lessons about human relationships here and were redirected elsewhere to learn lessons that were more useful. Not necessarily a position I am taking myself today, just describing.)
Well, it’s my own verdict, with which you’re welcome to agree or disagree. But even without getting into any substantive issues from these discussions, consider this. In the past, these topics have many times led to a breakdown of rational discourse. If this no longer happens, what is the more plausible explanation: that LW has somehow suddenly and collectively figured out a way to discuss these topics rationally, or that people are simply tired of the same old unproductive clashes so that nobody even bothers to challenge the happy death spirals?
If any people think it’s the former, I’d really be curious about their hypotheses on what caused this sudden change for the better.
.
I wouldn’t want to point fingers at people this way even if we were talking about unambiguous and agreed-upon instances of errors, let alone in cases like this, where it would open whole cans of worms. It would look like I’m being confrontational against individuals, rather than pointing out a general problem.
On the other hand, I think it’s reasonable to ask my above question in this context. Given the previous history of discussions about this topic, what is the reason to consider the first explanation as more probable than the second? (And what would be the cause of the change assumed by the first one?)
The third alternative is to try things differently. It’s not helpful to make no effort and then ask “Have things magically changed, or will this fail?”
I like to, when possible, jump on unsubstantiated accusations and ask for evidence, rather than argue about opinions. We can make progress by better applying the norm that accusations against people on LW need evidence and examples of at least possible wrongdoing.
If the first explanation is even fairly likely, it’s worth not suggesting suppressing a topic. Greater probability is not necessary.
.
Perhaps, if the baby is handed off to caring adopted parents and is freed from abusive, incompetent parents with dangerously substandard hygene practices.
(That’s how the metaphor would represent the case in which individuals were saved from learning false lessons about human relationships here and were redirected elsewhere to learn lessons that were more useful. Not necessarily a position I am taking myself today, just describing.)
Let’s wait and see.