Nobody here defends the practice of throwing paint.
But if you wanted me to, then I would say that it’s preferable to throwing stones at other people. You still make your political point by throwing paint at policeman but you are causing less lasting damage. Convincing those people on the left who have a habit of throwing stones at policemen in political demonstrations to instead throw paint would cause less lasting injuries.
You have even higher returns in utility if you could convince a group like Hamas to throw paint instead of using nail bombs.
Nobody here defends the practice of throwing paint.
No?
And throwing paint on people? Hilarious. It’s not a terribly nice thing to do, especially if the person is wearing nice clothes or is emotionally fragile, but [...]
Sounds to me like that means “throwing paint is extremely funny and pretty much OK”.
Sounds to me like that means “throwing paint is extremely funny and pretty much OK”.
The point of the paragraph is to show that it’s possible to play devils advocate in this case. Also a bit about having fun playing devil’s advocate. Joking. Not long ago a fellow member on LW joked about committing bioterrorism. Distinguishing in what intent something is written is important.
Saying “It’s not a terribly nice thing” labels the action as a hostile action. That means you only do it if you actually want to engage in a hostile action against someone else. Given various choices of hostile actions it’s not clear that throwing paint is a bad choice.
That Vulture’s paragraph could be read that way has occurred to me, but it is far from obvious (you’ll note that my original post here is a request for confirmation that I am reading things correctly). I’ve met people with opinions like that before—not on throwing paint, because again, it’s something I’m unfamiliar with, but on other ways to be a jackass.
But it doesn’t matter. Even if you were correct about that, then if we’re discussing the possibility of Alicorn’s or anyone’s outraged/upset reaction to a defense of throwing paint, this only makes sense if this a defense possible to be taken seriously, to elicit a serious reaction. And not something as silly as “you should prefer it to throwing nail bombs”, which deserves only a shrug. So, either way, I felt compelled to assume Vulture was saying something I’m supposed to be able to follow without suspending all common sense.
Even if you were correct about that, then if we’re discussing the possibility of Alicorn’s or anyone’s outraged/upset reaction to a defense of throwing paint, this only makes sense if this a defense possible to be taken seriously, to elicit a serious reaction.
I do think that Alicorn follows a policy of being offended when people to engage in serious efforts to play devils advocate for positions that she considers to be immoral.
Playing devils advocate for extreme immoral positions is something that some people can see as a game. If you go to the world debating championships than you might get a topic to argue that there should be more genocide.
For debating folks making such an argument is a fun game of being intellectually detached from the position that one argues. There are other people who don’t think that there use in someone producing the best defense of genocide that’s possible to produce.
So, either way, I felt compelled to assume Vulture was saying something I’m supposed to be able to follow without suspending all common sense.
It’s possible to win debating tournaments where judges look at whether the participants make rational arguments while advocating positions that are very immoral. It doesn’t take suspending common sense to make an argument that not enough people throw paint at other people. It just takes intellectual detachment.
Nobody here defends the practice of throwing paint.
But if you wanted me to, then I would say that it’s preferable to throwing stones at other people. You still make your political point by throwing paint at policeman but you are causing less lasting damage. Convincing those people on the left who have a habit of throwing stones at policemen in political demonstrations to instead throw paint would cause less lasting injuries.
You have even higher returns in utility if you could convince a group like Hamas to throw paint instead of using nail bombs.
No?
Sounds to me like that means “throwing paint is extremely funny and pretty much OK”.
The point of the paragraph is to show that it’s possible to play devils advocate in this case. Also a bit about having fun playing devil’s advocate. Joking. Not long ago a fellow member on LW joked about committing bioterrorism. Distinguishing in what intent something is written is important.
Saying “It’s not a terribly nice thing” labels the action as a hostile action. That means you only do it if you actually want to engage in a hostile action against someone else. Given various choices of hostile actions it’s not clear that throwing paint is a bad choice.
That Vulture’s paragraph could be read that way has occurred to me, but it is far from obvious (you’ll note that my original post here is a request for confirmation that I am reading things correctly). I’ve met people with opinions like that before—not on throwing paint, because again, it’s something I’m unfamiliar with, but on other ways to be a jackass.
But it doesn’t matter. Even if you were correct about that, then if we’re discussing the possibility of Alicorn’s or anyone’s outraged/upset reaction to a defense of throwing paint, this only makes sense if this a defense possible to be taken seriously, to elicit a serious reaction. And not something as silly as “you should prefer it to throwing nail bombs”, which deserves only a shrug. So, either way, I felt compelled to assume Vulture was saying something I’m supposed to be able to follow without suspending all common sense.
I do think that Alicorn follows a policy of being offended when people to engage in serious efforts to play devils advocate for positions that she considers to be immoral.
Playing devils advocate for extreme immoral positions is something that some people can see as a game. If you go to the world debating championships than you might get a topic to argue that there should be more genocide. For debating folks making such an argument is a fun game of being intellectually detached from the position that one argues. There are other people who don’t think that there use in someone producing the best defense of genocide that’s possible to produce.
It’s possible to win debating tournaments where judges look at whether the participants make rational arguments while advocating positions that are very immoral. It doesn’t take suspending common sense to make an argument that not enough people throw paint at other people. It just takes intellectual detachment.