If you want to have a deep discussion about how political action should be motivated, why not write a post that focuses on that?
In general, a fair point. Your post talks about two things. Let’s call them 1. Discussing/calling for reasonable politics. 2. Ruling out Moldbug.
Comparatively, there was a post a ways back that said something like: 1. Freedom of speech, people can talk about whatever. 2.Unless they’re nazis, then they should be banned.
Are there ways that can include 1 but exclude 2? Yes. I was asking which one of them it was. 1 reads like a call for ideas, idea generation, brainstorming. 2 is reducing things.
Both may be a part of finding/choosing solutions. But it isn’t super clear what it is that is being ruled out in advance before brainstorming.
Loss of freedom? Pre-existing systems of thought (like communism, or the agendas of the left or right)? Things that are unethical? Politically untenable? Or things that don’t emerge naturally as solutions to things that are considered problems?
I’m interested in deep discussions of my central points
Practical has to start somewhere. Is the post you made a call for political activism, or political thought (via blogging)?
Your post talks about two things. Let’s call them 1. Discussing/calling for reasonable politics. 2. Ruling out Moldbug.
My post makes a lot more points then those two. The point about Moldbug is not one that I deeply developed. Besides proposing a specific way to do politics I spent effort to argue that the causes of the Egyptian revolution (a major political event) should be seen differently. I explained the philosophy behind Wikileaks and do believe it’s valuable for people to understand it. Those are points that are developed over multiple paragraphes.
I don’t think influencing people’s opinion of Moldbug is important.
Unless they’re nazis, then they should be banned.
I remember that case. I think there’s a core difference between saying “nazis are bad” in an enviroment where most people believe “nazis are bad” and saying “nazis should be banned” at a venue which moderation policies that don’t involve banning nazis.
Is the post you made a call for political activism, or political thought (via blogging)?
Those two don’t feel like categories that I would use. It’s the nature of political thought that isn’t just play-acting to encourage action.
Those two don’t feel like categories that I would use. It’s the nature of political thought that isn’t just play-acting to encourage action.
True. The action you wanted out of this post seemed to be coming up with figuring out action, rather than executing it:
If we find a design that nicely fits together there are a lot of people who hate the status quo and who gladly take your political philosophy if they don’t have to do the leg work of thinking up the fundamentals themselves.
Something like political design/science/communication. Might have been a better choice of words, though I’m a bit fuzzy on which/what you’re pointing at beyond “let’s not rule out politics”.
In general, a fair point. Your post talks about two things. Let’s call them 1. Discussing/calling for reasonable politics. 2. Ruling out Moldbug.
Comparatively, there was a post a ways back that said something like: 1. Freedom of speech, people can talk about whatever. 2.Unless they’re nazis, then they should be banned.
Are there ways that can include 1 but exclude 2? Yes. I was asking which one of them it was. 1 reads like a call for ideas, idea generation, brainstorming. 2 is reducing things.
Both may be a part of finding/choosing solutions. But it isn’t super clear what it is that is being ruled out in advance before brainstorming.
Loss of freedom? Pre-existing systems of thought (like communism, or the agendas of the left or right)? Things that are unethical? Politically untenable? Or things that don’t emerge naturally as solutions to things that are considered problems?
Practical has to start somewhere. Is the post you made a call for political activism, or political thought (via blogging)?
My post makes a lot more points then those two. The point about Moldbug is not one that I deeply developed. Besides proposing a specific way to do politics I spent effort to argue that the causes of the Egyptian revolution (a major political event) should be seen differently. I explained the philosophy behind Wikileaks and do believe it’s valuable for people to understand it. Those are points that are developed over multiple paragraphes.
I don’t think influencing people’s opinion of Moldbug is important.
I remember that case. I think there’s a core difference between saying “nazis are bad” in an enviroment where most people believe “nazis are bad” and saying “nazis should be banned” at a venue which moderation policies that don’t involve banning nazis.
Those two don’t feel like categories that I would use. It’s the nature of political thought that isn’t just play-acting to encourage action.
True. The action you wanted out of this post seemed to be coming up with figuring out action, rather than executing it:
Something like political design/science/communication. Might have been a better choice of words, though I’m a bit fuzzy on which/what you’re pointing at beyond “let’s not rule out politics”.
That’s one example of things I pointed out as valuable in the post it’s however not the only thing I argued to be valuable.