Why is it necessarily more rational to disregard “social consequences”?
I think it’s not irrational per se, just that it probably wouldn’t fly in this community as a substantive consideration in whether an argument should or should be presented here. Usually it’s considered eminently rude (but not strictly false) to say that the members of your own ingroup are too dumb/biased to discuss a given topic fairly.
I suppose I could also try to bootstrap this into an argument for a strong presumption against restricting speech due to its expected “social consequences” in general, but I think my original points suffice.
Usually it’s considered eminently rude (but not strictly false) to say that the members of your own ingroup are too dumb/biased to discuss a given topic fairly.
Isn’t social acceptance of saying rude but not false things exactly what you’re arguing in favor of?
In general I do carry a strong presumption against restricting speech. But I have a lot of prior experience that, for “gender difference observations not backed by data”, the value of the speech approaches nil in the average case, and is only marginally better on LW, so counterarguments carry a lot more relative weight.
Isn’t social acceptance of saying rude but not false things exactly what you’re arguing in favor of?
I don’t think so, unless you’re implying that the armchair theorizing in this community is always rude. I’d prefer to presume that not to be the case unless there’s evidence otherwise… and I conceded in my top-level reply to this thread that there sometimes is (in my view.)
To add to SoullessAutomaton’s response, the accusation is that the topic is already not being discussed fairly. And I think one could follow the spirit of this post without actually leaving out any ideas, but merely employing some considerate phrasing.
I think it’s not irrational per se, just that it probably wouldn’t fly in this community as a substantive consideration in whether an argument should or should be presented here. Usually it’s considered eminently rude (but not strictly false) to say that the members of your own ingroup are too dumb/biased to discuss a given topic fairly.
I suppose I could also try to bootstrap this into an argument for a strong presumption against restricting speech due to its expected “social consequences” in general, but I think my original points suffice.
Isn’t social acceptance of saying rude but not false things exactly what you’re arguing in favor of?
In general I do carry a strong presumption against restricting speech. But I have a lot of prior experience that, for “gender difference observations not backed by data”, the value of the speech approaches nil in the average case, and is only marginally better on LW, so counterarguments carry a lot more relative weight.
I don’t think so, unless you’re implying that the armchair theorizing in this community is always rude. I’d prefer to presume that not to be the case unless there’s evidence otherwise… and I conceded in my top-level reply to this thread that there sometimes is (in my view.)
Well, all else equal, speculations about other people based on their intrinsic demographics seems fairly rude to me; your mileage may vary.
I am, as I said, willing to accept rudeness when stating facts, though tact is always appreciated.
To add to SoullessAutomaton’s response, the accusation is that the topic is already not being discussed fairly. And I think one could follow the spirit of this post without actually leaving out any ideas, but merely employing some considerate phrasing.