The ban on politics as I understand it is a ban on the vast, very complicated questions of how to run a society, political parties, etc.
Surely there is nothing that says the results of rational analysis cannot be mentioned in the world. Suppose someone argued the law should be changed so that a person cryonically frozen can have a will keeping his money for his own use when he’s revived. (Has anyone here said that? I don’t know. But it seems possible.) No one is going to say, “You can’t mention that, because you’re trying to change society.”
Saying that “Lots of pedophiles don’t abuse children” seems like a very specific statement based on (apparently trivial, to some people) rational analysis. Might it have some butterfly-wing effect on making pedophiles’ lives better? Maybe. Is anyone saying that choice of topics related to rationality cannot be chosen with an eye to their relevance in making the world a better place?
The ban on politics as I understand it is a ban on the vast, very complicated questions of how to run a society, political parties, etc.
Nope.
First, there is no ban on politics, only a warning and some discouragement.
And at issue are not “vast, complicated questions”, at issue are questions which bring unthinking, emotional, lizard-brain, tribal-identity responses to the fore. That’s why “politics is the mind-killer”—because people tend to stop thinking and go into the “HULK SMASH HATED ENEMY!” mode. Which is less than useful.
One way to diagnose it would be to start discussing a topic and waiting for the mind-killing dialog to begin. It might not. In this controversy there is no one else arguing on my side so far (and it’s not even clear there is a substantive argument. All we’re debating is whether it’s OK to discuss the topic.) I don’t think anyone can accuse me of ceasing to think or being impolite. And if it turned out that it’s only the other side that stops thinking and goes into “hulk...smash” mode, that might say something in itself.
One might also hope that occasionally, every now and then, an issue might emerge from lizard-brain mode; things do change sometimes.
And if it turned out that it’s only the other side that stops thinking and goes into “hulk...smash” mode, that might say something in itself.
It wouldn’t be the first topic to produce that result. There are some subjects that I have ended up conceding it is better not to discuss at all (if the alternative is disgraceful conversation).
The ban on politics as I understand it is a ban on the vast, very complicated questions of how to run a society, political parties, etc.
That is only part of the ban. I recommend reading the post ‘politics is the mindkiller’, and probably the entire sequence it is located in.
Is anyone saying that choice of topics related to rationality cannot be chosen with an eye to their relevance in making the world a better place?
I agree, in that we should choose topics by this kind of criteria. And it is by this criteria that I state my opinion that there are many, many topics as yet unexplored here which far outrank that of pedophilia and which also do not bring political fallout and disrepute to the forum.
The ban on politics as I understand it is a ban on the vast, very complicated questions of how to run a society, political parties, etc.
Surely there is nothing that says the results of rational analysis cannot be mentioned in the world. Suppose someone argued the law should be changed so that a person cryonically frozen can have a will keeping his money for his own use when he’s revived. (Has anyone here said that? I don’t know. But it seems possible.) No one is going to say, “You can’t mention that, because you’re trying to change society.”
Saying that “Lots of pedophiles don’t abuse children” seems like a very specific statement based on (apparently trivial, to some people) rational analysis. Might it have some butterfly-wing effect on making pedophiles’ lives better? Maybe. Is anyone saying that choice of topics related to rationality cannot be chosen with an eye to their relevance in making the world a better place?
Nope.
First, there is no ban on politics, only a warning and some discouragement.
And at issue are not “vast, complicated questions”, at issue are questions which bring unthinking, emotional, lizard-brain, tribal-identity responses to the fore. That’s why “politics is the mind-killer”—because people tend to stop thinking and go into the “HULK SMASH HATED ENEMY!” mode. Which is less than useful.
Thanks for the clarification on politics.
One way to diagnose it would be to start discussing a topic and waiting for the mind-killing dialog to begin. It might not. In this controversy there is no one else arguing on my side so far (and it’s not even clear there is a substantive argument. All we’re debating is whether it’s OK to discuss the topic.) I don’t think anyone can accuse me of ceasing to think or being impolite. And if it turned out that it’s only the other side that stops thinking and goes into “hulk...smash” mode, that might say something in itself.
One might also hope that occasionally, every now and then, an issue might emerge from lizard-brain mode; things do change sometimes.
It wouldn’t be the first topic to produce that result. There are some subjects that I have ended up conceding it is better not to discuss at all (if the alternative is disgraceful conversation).
But we aren’t interested that much into diagnosis.
Yes, but what that “something” is, depends. Sometimes it only says who has better trolling skillz.
That is only part of the ban. I recommend reading the post ‘politics is the mindkiller’, and probably the entire sequence it is located in.
I agree, in that we should choose topics by this kind of criteria. And it is by this criteria that I state my opinion that there are many, many topics as yet unexplored here which far outrank that of pedophilia and which also do not bring political fallout and disrepute to the forum.