I’m not proposing a new and better definition of “taboo.” I’m proposing a new and useful notion of taboo under particular circumstances: what true things can we really not say? If we can talk about them but must do so carefully, let’s do it carefully.
Here’s the other side of this usefulness: there’s a moral to the story here. Statements that are marginalized are often marginalized for good reason. People who claim to be speaking taboo truths are giving us and themselves a very self-serving story in which they feature as heroes. I think it’s a worthwhile caution, particularly in a forum so full of contrarians like myself.
I think we’re trying to do different things with similar concepts. Frustrated people who think that “taboo” facts consequently receive too little attention get a new answer: learn to communicate. Right now, they form communities of whiners. Some of these things are important. And they can be talked about. Figure out how to talk about them. I’m offering a means of improvement here.
Right now, they say that “race realism” is “beyond the pale.” But is it? Or is it that “beyond the pale” looks much more like the statement I gave in my previous comment?
Don’t think of not-actually-taboo things as taboo. It sounds like sound advice to me.
You’re not proposing a definition, you’re just proposing a notion? I have difficulty here distinguishing between a notion and a definition and it’s not because I don’t speak English. You seem to be making a very artificial distinction.
Of course the distinction is artificial, but it is worth making, as I explain in the rest of the comment. Is there something wrong with my motivations?
Once people start talking about things that are “beyond the pale”, they become less taboo, at least in some contexts. So I’m not sure you can find what you are looking for—something obvious that no one at all will discuss.
I’m not proposing a new and better definition of “taboo.” I’m proposing a new and useful notion of taboo under particular circumstances: what true things can we really not say? If we can talk about them but must do so carefully, let’s do it carefully.
Here’s the other side of this usefulness: there’s a moral to the story here. Statements that are marginalized are often marginalized for good reason. People who claim to be speaking taboo truths are giving us and themselves a very self-serving story in which they feature as heroes. I think it’s a worthwhile caution, particularly in a forum so full of contrarians like myself.
I think we’re trying to do different things with similar concepts. Frustrated people who think that “taboo” facts consequently receive too little attention get a new answer: learn to communicate. Right now, they form communities of whiners. Some of these things are important. And they can be talked about. Figure out how to talk about them. I’m offering a means of improvement here.
Right now, they say that “race realism” is “beyond the pale.” But is it? Or is it that “beyond the pale” looks much more like the statement I gave in my previous comment?
Don’t think of not-actually-taboo things as taboo. It sounds like sound advice to me.
Have you read Paul Graham’s essay What you can’t say? The reason I ask is that it addresses several mistakes you keep making.
You’re not proposing a definition, you’re just proposing a notion? I have difficulty here distinguishing between a notion and a definition and it’s not because I don’t speak English. You seem to be making a very artificial distinction.
Of course the distinction is artificial, but it is worth making, as I explain in the rest of the comment. Is there something wrong with my motivations?
Once people start talking about things that are “beyond the pale”, they become less taboo, at least in some contexts. So I’m not sure you can find what you are looking for—something obvious that no one at all will discuss.