I was inclined to agree as well, but there was enough connected to the recent discussion of difficulties empathizing with artificial intelligences that I thought it was worth including.
Probably because the original “politics as mindkiller” article is about avoiding non-critical politically charged examples, and says nothing about avoiding any and all political discussion. In fact, it says at the end that it’s ok to talk about politically charged subjects.
(Of course, the whole thing is just EY’s opinion, and we’re certainly allowed to have new norms like “no politics ever”. But the original post frequently gets invoked as if it says things that it in fact says the opposite of.)
This doesn’t seem to me to be a “sequences” post; it’s a response to a particular incident on Overcoming Bias …
“The Sequences” customarily designates the entire corpus of EY’s essays on Overcoming Bias.
I agree with fubarobfusco’s usage.
I was inclined to agree as well, but there was enough connected to the recent discussion of difficulties empathizing with artificial intelligences that I thought it was worth including.
Agreed, and I’m also concerned about the potential for mindkilling in this topic.
Can someone please tell me why this comment was downvoted?
Probably because the original “politics as mindkiller” article is about avoiding non-critical politically charged examples, and says nothing about avoiding any and all political discussion. In fact, it says at the end that it’s ok to talk about politically charged subjects.
(Of course, the whole thing is just EY’s opinion, and we’re certainly allowed to have new norms like “no politics ever”. But the original post frequently gets invoked as if it says things that it in fact says the opposite of.)
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification!