’Tis a shame that an event like tonight’s debate won’t, and ostensibly never would have, received any direct coverage/discussion on LW, or any other rationality sites of which I am aware.
I know (I know, I know...) politics is the mind killer, but tonight—and the U.S. POTUS election writ large—is shaping up to be a very consequential world event, and LW is busy discussing base rates at the vet and LPTs for getting fit given limited square footage.
Lately it seems that at least 50% of the Slate Star Codex open threads are filled by Trump/Clinton discussions, so I’m willing to bet that the debate will be covered there as well.
Given that previous US debates results in a LW person writting an annotated version that pointed out every wrong claim made during the debate, why do you think that LW shies away from discussing US debates?
Secondly what do you think would “direct coverage” produce? There’s no advantage for rational thinking in covering an event like this live. At least I can’t imagine this debate going in a way where my actions significantly change based on what happens in the debate and it would be bad if I would gain the information in a week.
Direct coverage is an illness of mainstream media. Most important events in the world aren’t known when they happen. We have Petrov day. How many newspapers covered the event the next day? Or even in the next month?
tonight—and the U.S. POTUS election writ large—is shaping up to be a very consequential world event
Is that actually true? I’ve lived through many US presidential eras, including multiple ones defined by “change.” Nothing of consequence really changed. Why should this be any different? (Rhetorical question, please don’t reply as the answer would be off-topic.)
Consider the possibility that if you want to be effective in your life goals (the point of rationality, no?) then you need to do so from a framework outside the bounds of political thought. Advanced rationalists may use political action as a tool, but not for the search of truth as we care about here. Political commentary has little relevance to the work that we do.
I’d argue U.S. policy is too important and consequential to require elaboration.
“Following politics” can be a waste of time, as it can be as big a reality show circus as the Kardashians. But it seems to me there are productive ways to discuss the election in a rational way. And it seems to me this is a useful way to spend some time and resource.
’Tis a shame that an event like tonight’s debate won’t, and ostensibly never would have, received any direct coverage/discussion on LW, or any other rationality sites of which I am aware.
I know (I know, I know...) politics is the mind killer, but tonight—and the U.S. POTUS election writ large—is shaping up to be a very consequential world event, and LW is busy discussing base rates at the vet and LPTs for getting fit given limited square footage.
Lately it seems that at least 50% of the Slate Star Codex open threads are filled by Trump/Clinton discussions, so I’m willing to bet that the debate will be covered there as well.
Given that previous US debates results in a LW person writting an annotated version that pointed out every wrong claim made during the debate, why do you think that LW shies away from discussing US debates?
Secondly what do you think would “direct coverage” produce? There’s no advantage for rational thinking in covering an event like this live. At least I can’t imagine this debate going in a way where my actions significantly change based on what happens in the debate and it would be bad if I would gain the information in a week.
Direct coverage is an illness of mainstream media. Most important events in the world aren’t known when they happen. We have Petrov day. How many newspapers covered the event the next day? Or even in the next month?
Is that actually true? I’ve lived through many US presidential eras, including multiple ones defined by “change.” Nothing of consequence really changed. Why should this be any different? (Rhetorical question, please don’t reply as the answer would be off-topic.)
Consider the possibility that if you want to be effective in your life goals (the point of rationality, no?) then you need to do so from a framework outside the bounds of political thought. Advanced rationalists may use political action as a tool, but not for the search of truth as we care about here. Political commentary has little relevance to the work that we do.
I don’t think nothing of consequence changed for the Iraqi’s through the election of Bush.
Compare that with Syria under Obama. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...”
I’d argue U.S. policy is too important and consequential to require elaboration.
“Following politics” can be a waste of time, as it can be as big a reality show circus as the Kardashians. But it seems to me there are productive ways to discuss the election in a rational way. And it seems to me this is a useful way to spend some time and resource.