I don’t care if people are turned away by it. We’ve gotta have one place that is pure, where people can speak truth and be as politically incorrect and offensive as they dare, and not make reason bend over backwards in the name of popularity. And this is that place.
But what about those who are turned away by the post? Don’t they need such a place too? Do they not count in “we”, or do we need more than one place?
But they also don’t have a place that has most of the positive features of LW + politeness/welcoming (to the degree they are compatible). LW could either become the sort of place they want, the sort of place you want or some sort of compromise. How did you determine that LW becoming your sort of place is best?
EDIT: I am not advocating banning PUA as a topic. Personally I don’t even completely understand why it’s offensive to anyone in the first place. But since I don’t understand I also suspend judgement on whether it should offend anyone.
Yes, but we are considerably less openly hostile to religion than e. g. Pharyngula and comments that are exclusively hostile to religion without otherwise being productive/rational get heavily downvoted.
So it’s not the case that we are completely ignoring offensiveness to religious people. I’d be open to arguments how weighting it more would be more beneficial overall.
Additionally religion is a matter of choice and at least somewhat indicative of current rationality while sex/sexual attraction is neither, and there are currently some norms against content that would be offensive to people of certain gender/sexual orientation so changing that would be a change from status quo.
Additionally religion is a matter of choice and at least somewhat indicative of current rationality while sex/sexual attraction is neither
Being offended by discussions of PUA and/or other politically incorrect topics, is also a matter of choice that is at least somewhat indicative of current rationality.
and there are currently some norms against content that would be offensive to people of certain gender/sexual orientation so changing that would be a change from status quo.
Aside from status quo bias I fail to see how that’s relevant.
Being offended by discussions of PUA and/or other politically incorrect topics, is also a matter of choice that is at least somewhat indicative of current rationality.
If you separate gender and being offended by things likely to offend a particular gender you should also separate religion and being offended by by things likely to offend people of a particular religiosity status. Either way one more level of choice and rationality correlation applies to the latter.
Aside from status quo bias I fail to see how that’s relevant.
It’s a counter-argument against the applicability of analogy to offending religious people defined as acceptable due to being current status quo. If status quo is irrelevant it is irrelevant both ways, if status quo applies it also applies both ways.
It’s a counter-argument against analogy to offending religious people defined as acceptable due to being current status quo applying. If status quo is irrelevant it is irrelevant both ways, if status quo applies it also applies both ways.
You mentioned the status quo. If you had just asked whether that (the best place for LW to be being in need of determination rather than clear a priori) should equally apply to offending religious people (while taking all relevant differences into account during the analysis) I would have answered: “Yes, of course.”
Yes, but we are considerably less openly hostile to religion than e. g. Pharyngula and comments that are exclusively hostile to religion without otherwise being productive/rational get heavily downvoted. So it’s not the case that we are completely ignoring offensiveness to religious people. I’d be open to arguments how weighting it more would be more beneficial overall.
I don’t know why this is down voted, LW really has gotten much more welcoming to religious people than other Atheist sites. And empty religion bashing with no rationalist content is heavily down voted. Do most people disagree with this assessment?
I think its because people realized over time they didn’t have to signal via religion bashing since there was a consensus. We’ve actually had interesting metacontrarians (ala Theists are wrong, but is theism?)
But what about those who are turned away by the post? Don’t they need such a place too? Do they not count in “we”, or do we need more than one place?
No, by definition, since they are those who turn away on encountering such a place.
But they also don’t have a place that has most of the positive features of LW + politeness/welcoming (to the degree they are compatible). LW could either become the sort of place they want, the sort of place you want or some sort of compromise. How did you determine that LW becoming your sort of place is best?
EDIT: I am not advocating banning PUA as a topic. Personally I don’t even completely understand why it’s offensive to anyone in the first place. But since I don’t understand I also suspend judgement on whether it should offend anyone.
Well, LW is already non-welcoming to a lot of groups people are supposedly trying to reach, e.g., religious people, to take an obvious example.
Yes, but we are considerably less openly hostile to religion than e. g. Pharyngula and comments that are exclusively hostile to religion without otherwise being productive/rational get heavily downvoted. So it’s not the case that we are completely ignoring offensiveness to religious people. I’d be open to arguments how weighting it more would be more beneficial overall.
Additionally religion is a matter of choice and at least somewhat indicative of current rationality while sex/sexual attraction is neither, and there are currently some norms against content that would be offensive to people of certain gender/sexual orientation so changing that would be a change from status quo.
Being offended by discussions of PUA and/or other politically incorrect topics, is also a matter of choice that is at least somewhat indicative of current rationality.
Aside from status quo bias I fail to see how that’s relevant.
If you separate gender and being offended by things likely to offend a particular gender you should also separate religion and being offended by by things likely to offend people of a particular religiosity status. Either way one more level of choice and rationality correlation applies to the latter.
It’s a counter-argument against the applicability of analogy to offending religious people defined as acceptable due to being current status quo. If status quo is irrelevant it is irrelevant both ways, if status quo applies it also applies both ways.
I never said status quo applied in either case.
What was the point of writing this then?
My point is that being overly concerned about offending people is not good for rationality in either case.
I don’t see how status quo is relevant.
You mentioned the status quo. If you had just asked whether that (the best place for LW to be being in need of determination rather than clear a priori) should equally apply to offending religious people (while taking all relevant differences into account during the analysis) I would have answered: “Yes, of course.”
I don’t know why this is down voted, LW really has gotten much more welcoming to religious people than other Atheist sites. And empty religion bashing with no rationalist content is heavily down voted. Do most people disagree with this assessment?
I think its because people realized over time they didn’t have to signal via religion bashing since there was a consensus. We’ve actually had interesting metacontrarians (ala Theists are wrong, but is theism?)