I see. My current aim is to provide knowledge and reasoning that would actually lower the chances of such discussions happening, moving the subject of climate change away from ideology and political opinions.
I’ll try to think of ways to further reduce the likelihood of exploitable discussions and demagoguing happening in my post. Knowing what I plan to write, I don’t think such discussions would easily be created even if I didn’t, though.
For my attempt ending up as increasing the likelihood of future posts and that leading to harmful discussions… I think it would require people being so determined in arguing about this and ignoring all the points I’d try to make that the current lack of posts on the subject wouldn’t serve as a sufficient barrier to stop them from arguing about it now.
Lastly, the site seems to me as having been designed with very effective barriers about such things spiralling out of of control enough to make not trivial damage, though, since you have been on this site from a lot longer than me, I feel like I should value your intuition on the subject more than mine.
All considered, it feels to me that if I consider the risks in leaving the situation as it is and the benefits good reasoning on the subject could provide, what I should do is write my post and try to minimise the chances of the discussion on that turning out badly.
I’m not claiming that this is a likely scenario (it might be, but that’s not the point). It’s about the meaning, not the truth. The question is what kind of hazards specifically steven0461 might be referring to, regardless of whether such hazards are likely to occur in reality (“has the potential to cause great harm” is also not a claim about high credence, only about great harm).
Personally I feel the forum finds the topic uninteresting, so that it’s hard to spark a continuing discussion, even if someone decides to write a lot of good posts on it. I also don’t expect a nontrivial amount of toxic debate. But that’s the nature of risks, they can be a cause for concern even when unlikely to materialize.
I see. My current aim is to provide knowledge and reasoning that would actually lower the chances of such discussions happening, moving the subject of climate change away from ideology and political opinions.
I’ll try to think of ways to further reduce the likelihood of exploitable discussions and demagoguing happening in my post. Knowing what I plan to write, I don’t think such discussions would easily be created even if I didn’t, though.
For my attempt ending up as increasing the likelihood of future posts and that leading to harmful discussions… I think it would require people being so determined in arguing about this and ignoring all the points I’d try to make that the current lack of posts on the subject wouldn’t serve as a sufficient barrier to stop them from arguing about it now.
Lastly, the site seems to me as having been designed with very effective barriers about such things spiralling out of of control enough to make not trivial damage, though, since you have been on this site from a lot longer than me, I feel like I should value your intuition on the subject more than mine.
All considered, it feels to me that if I consider the risks in leaving the situation as it is and the benefits good reasoning on the subject could provide, what I should do is write my post and try to minimise the chances of the discussion on that turning out badly.
I’m not claiming that this is a likely scenario (it might be, but that’s not the point). It’s about the meaning, not the truth. The question is what kind of hazards specifically steven0461 might be referring to, regardless of whether such hazards are likely to occur in reality (“has the potential to cause great harm” is also not a claim about high credence, only about great harm).
Personally I feel the forum finds the topic uninteresting, so that it’s hard to spark a continuing discussion, even if someone decides to write a lot of good posts on it. I also don’t expect a nontrivial amount of toxic debate. But that’s the nature of risks, they can be a cause for concern even when unlikely to materialize.