From a pro-pirate angle, with an explicit goal to kill pop culture.
That’s just another form of politics.
Have you read the parts of Sequences about politics and motivated reasoning? (Short version is that “I will start chanting our slogans and give you selected arguments about why my side is better than the other side” does not contribute to epistemic rationality, and so we should not do it here.)
But I think I am “strong” enough to avoid my usual tribal arguments (“copy is not stealing as it does not remove the original”) and be fully consequentualist (“copying kills pop culture, and it is good because”) and how would that be a bad thing? My point is precisely that we are probably strong enough to discuss such topics without slogan-chanting and well within epistemic rationality.
And I am unsure how you didn’t recognize that the sentence you quoted is not the usual four-legs-good tribal chant but something with a clear consequence predicted which is easy to approach rationally (“what is the chance it kills pop culture?” “what is the chance good things happen if pop culture gets killed?”)
The entire point of “politics is the mind-killer” is that no, even here is not immune to tribalistic idea-warfare politics. The politics just get more complicated. And the stopgap solution until we figure out a way around that tendency, which doesn’t appear reliably avoidable, is to sandbox the topic and keep it limited. You should have a high prior that a belief that you can be “strong” is Dunning-Kruger talking.
You should have a high prior that a belief that you can be “strong” is Dunning-Kruger talking.
Okay, but feeling no passion, literally, no blood pressure rising isn’t a strong evidence there with few false positives? Does it have many false positives?
Sandboxing is okay, better than total taboo, this is why I recommended a quarantine. Or a biweekly thread.
That’s just another form of politics.
Have you read the parts of Sequences about politics and motivated reasoning? (Short version is that “I will start chanting our slogans and give you selected arguments about why my side is better than the other side” does not contribute to epistemic rationality, and so we should not do it here.)
But I think I am “strong” enough to avoid my usual tribal arguments (“copy is not stealing as it does not remove the original”) and be fully consequentualist (“copying kills pop culture, and it is good because”) and how would that be a bad thing? My point is precisely that we are probably strong enough to discuss such topics without slogan-chanting and well within epistemic rationality.
And I am unsure how you didn’t recognize that the sentence you quoted is not the usual four-legs-good tribal chant but something with a clear consequence predicted which is easy to approach rationally (“what is the chance it kills pop culture?” “what is the chance good things happen if pop culture gets killed?”)
The entire point of “politics is the mind-killer” is that no, even here is not immune to tribalistic idea-warfare politics. The politics just get more complicated. And the stopgap solution until we figure out a way around that tendency, which doesn’t appear reliably avoidable, is to sandbox the topic and keep it limited. You should have a high prior that a belief that you can be “strong” is Dunning-Kruger talking.
Okay, but feeling no passion, literally, no blood pressure rising isn’t a strong evidence there with few false positives? Does it have many false positives?
Sandboxing is okay, better than total taboo, this is why I recommended a quarantine. Or a biweekly thread.