I didn’t see anything in eagain’s comment that demanded that he[1] get to establish the framework and set the rules.
(It is easy, and cheap, to portray any suggestion that there should be rules as an attempt to get to set them. Human nature being what it is, this will at least sometimes be at least partly right. I don’t see that that means that having rules isn’t sometimes a damn good idea.)
I said exposed to the bright, glaring sunlight of factual rigor.
These words do not appear anywhere in your comment. Instead you said:
I advise allowing just enough politics to discuss the political issues tangent to other, more basic rationalist wheelhouses … Don’t go beyond that. There are people who love to put an intellectual veneer over deeply bad ideas, and they raid basically any forum on the internet
“Don’t go beyond that” seems to mean not allowing those politics and the bad-idea raiders. “Not allowing” does not mean “expose to sunlight”, it means “exclude”.
Perhaps he does. It wouldn’t exactly be an uncommon trait. However, there is a gap between thinking that some particular ideas are very bad and we’d be better off without them, and insisting on setting the rules of debate oneself, and it is not honest to claim that someone is doing the latter merely because you are sure they must be doing the former.
This thread is about setting the rules for discussions, isn’t it? Eagain is talking in the context of specifying in which framework discussing politics can be made to work on LW.
Yup. That is (I repeat) not the same thing as insisting that he get to establish the framework and set the rules.
(It seems to me that with at least equal justice someone could complain that you are determined to establish the framework and set the rules; it’s just that you prefer no framework and no rules. I don’t know whether that actually is your preference, but it seems to me that there’s as much evidence for it as there is for some of what you are saying about eagain’s mental state.)
Aren’t you? I mean, you’re not making concrete proposals yourself, of course; I don’t think I have ever seen you make a concrete constructive proposal about anything, as opposed to objecting to other people’s. But looking at the things you object to and the things you don’t, it seems to me that you’re taking a position on how LW’s discussions should be just as much as eagain is; you’re just expressing it by objecting to things that diverge from it, rather than by stating it explicitly.
Lumifer seems to object to things because he finds it enjoyable to object to things, and this is a good explanation for why he objects to things rather than making his own proposals. But this means that he is not necessarily taking a position on how discussion should be, since he would be likely to object to both a proposal and its opposite, just because it would still be fun to object.
I don’t think I have ever seen you make a concrete constructive proposal about anything, as opposed to objecting to other people’s.
Hmm. That sounds like a nice rule: anyone who spends all their posting efforts on objecting to other people’s ideas without putting forth anything constructive of their own shall be banned, or at least downvoted into oblivion.
I didn’t see anything in eagain’s comment that demanded that he[1] get to establish the framework and set the rules.
(It is easy, and cheap, to portray any suggestion that there should be rules as an attempt to get to set them. Human nature being what it is, this will at least sometimes be at least partly right. I don’t see that that means that having rules isn’t sometimes a damn good idea.)
[1] Apologies if I guessed wrong.
Eagain knows which ideas are “deeply bad” and he’s quite certain they need to be excluded from the conversation.
I didn’t say excluded from the conversation. I said exposed to the bright, glaring sunlight of factual rigor.
These words do not appear anywhere in your comment. Instead you said:
“Don’t go beyond that” seems to mean not allowing those politics and the bad-idea raiders. “Not allowing” does not mean “expose to sunlight”, it means “exclude”.
I’m not sure if this what eagain was alluding to, but this does seem advisable; Do not permit (continuous) debates of recognizably bad ideas.
I admit this is difficult to enforce, but stating that rule will, in my opinion, color the intended purpose of this website.
The word “bad” looks to be doing all the heavy lifting in here.
Which isnt being done because of what...? Widespread stupidity?
Perhaps he does. It wouldn’t exactly be an uncommon trait. However, there is a gap between thinking that some particular ideas are very bad and we’d be better off without them, and insisting on setting the rules of debate oneself, and it is not honest to claim that someone is doing the latter merely because you are sure they must be doing the former.
This thread is about setting the rules for discussions, isn’t it? Eagain is talking in the context of specifying in which framework discussing politics can be made to work on LW.
Yup. That is (I repeat) not the same thing as insisting that he get to establish the framework and set the rules.
(It seems to me that with at least equal justice someone could complain that you are determined to establish the framework and set the rules; it’s just that you prefer no framework and no rules. I don’t know whether that actually is your preference, but it seems to me that there’s as much evidence for it as there is for some of what you are saying about eagain’s mental state.)
And yet I’m not telling LW how to set up discussions...
Aren’t you? I mean, you’re not making concrete proposals yourself, of course; I don’t think I have ever seen you make a concrete constructive proposal about anything, as opposed to objecting to other people’s. But looking at the things you object to and the things you don’t, it seems to me that you’re taking a position on how LW’s discussions should be just as much as eagain is; you’re just expressing it by objecting to things that diverge from it, rather than by stating it explicitly.
Lumifer seems to object to things because he finds it enjoyable to object to things, and this is a good explanation for why he objects to things rather than making his own proposals. But this means that he is not necessarily taking a position on how discussion should be, since he would be likely to object to both a proposal and its opposite, just because it would still be fun to object.
It seems to me that there are definite regularities in which proposals he objects to and which he doesn’t.
Hmm. That sounds like a nice rule: anyone who spends all their posting efforts on objecting to other people’s ideas without putting forth anything constructive of their own shall be banned, or at least downvoted into oblivion.
I think that would be excessive. Pointing out others’ mistakes is a useful activity. (Think of Socrates.) Also, downvoting is disabled right now.
The thing is, I understand the difference between argument points and policy proposals. These are very very different creatures.