I don’t understand what would make you think that this post was intended to repeal the no current politics rule. None of the examples cited were specifically political.
If a topic is important, the public discourse on it is wrong for any reason, it hasn’t appeared on Less Wrong before, and a discussion on Less Wrong would probably bring clarity, then it is automatically considered on-topic. By important, I mean topics where inaccurate or confused beliefs would cost lots of utility for readers or for humanity.
Politics is important (with high utility costs), the public discourse is wrong, it hasn’t appeared here before. It’s not entirely obvious that discussion on LW would bring clarity, but probably it would. Why do you think politics does not qualify as a topic endorsed by the OP?
Let’s say we talk about politics for a while and come up with a concrete proposal. The utility of our work is the product of (utility of proposal if implemented) and (probability of successfully implementing proposal). Even if the first number is very high, the second probability is vanishingly small.
This means that politics is not important as a Less Wrong topic.
Just because there’s always been an explicit ban on it, OP didn’t propose repealing that ban, and none of the examples he cited were explicitly political.
Personally I’m undecided on whether political discussions would be a good idea (they should, at a minimum, be confined to a subreddit imho), I’m just confused why the commenter seemed to think thats what OP meant when he didn’t say anything about it.
Just because there’s always been an explicit ban on it, OP didn’t propose repealing that ban, and none of the examples he cited were explicitly political.
Personally I’m undecided on whether political discussions would be a good idea (they should, at a minimum, be confined to a subreddit imho), I’m just confused why the commenter seemed to think thats what OP meant when he didn’t say anything about it.
Personally, I don’t endorse political discussions either, however I find CronoDAS’s interpretation reasonable, for reasons I have explained in the parent. Do you dispute that wrong beliefs about politics have high utility costs, or that a discussion on LW would probably bring clarity? Or you think that anything short of explicit and specific demand to lift the ban cannot be interpreted as a proposal going in that direction?
Do you dispute that wrong beliefs about politics have high utility costs
No
or that a discussion on LW would probably bring clarity?
Maybe.
If LW could come up with some way to counter the mind-killing effects of politics, and develop a mechanism for reliably, repeatably holding discussions on politically charged issues without them devolving into irrationality, well then that would be awesome—LW would have done a great service to mankind in developing such a system. I’m just skeptical as to whether that’s possible, since it’s been tried so many times before, and so far, never succeeded. I’m definitely not saying we should give up—it’s certainly a noble goal—I just think we should be very careful about letting a failed experiment in this direction have a corrupting influence on the successful elements that LW has been able to build so far.
Do you dispute that wrong beliefs about politics have high utility costs
No
or that a discussion on LW would probably bring clarity?
Maybe.
If LW could come up with some way to counter the mind-killing effects of politics, and develop a mechanism for reliably, repeatably holding discussions on politically charged issues without them devolving into irrationality, well then that would be awesome—LW would have done a great service to mankind in developing such a system. I’m just skeptical as to whether that’s possible, since it’s been tried so many times before, and so far, never succeeded. I’m definitely not saying we should give up—it’s certainly a noble goal—I just think we should be very careful about letting a failed experiment in this direction have a corrupting influence on the successful elements that LW has been able to build so far.
I don’t understand what would make you think that this post was intended to repeal the no current politics rule. None of the examples cited were specifically political.
This:
Politics is important (with high utility costs), the public discourse is wrong, it hasn’t appeared here before. It’s not entirely obvious that discussion on LW would bring clarity, but probably it would. Why do you think politics does not qualify as a topic endorsed by the OP?
Let’s say we talk about politics for a while and come up with a concrete proposal. The utility of our work is the product of (utility of proposal if implemented) and (probability of successfully implementing proposal). Even if the first number is very high, the second probability is vanishingly small.
This means that politics is not important as a Less Wrong topic.
Under your definition of importance, agreed. However, for reasons which are clear from the context, I have used the definition of the original post:
Just because there’s always been an explicit ban on it, OP didn’t propose repealing that ban, and none of the examples he cited were explicitly political.
Personally I’m undecided on whether political discussions would be a good idea (they should, at a minimum, be confined to a subreddit imho), I’m just confused why the commenter seemed to think thats what OP meant when he didn’t say anything about it.
Just because there’s always been an explicit ban on it, OP didn’t propose repealing that ban, and none of the examples he cited were explicitly political.
Personally I’m undecided on whether political discussions would be a good idea (they should, at a minimum, be confined to a subreddit imho), I’m just confused why the commenter seemed to think thats what OP meant when he didn’t say anything about it.
Personally, I don’t endorse political discussions either, however I find CronoDAS’s interpretation reasonable, for reasons I have explained in the parent. Do you dispute that wrong beliefs about politics have high utility costs, or that a discussion on LW would probably bring clarity? Or you think that anything short of explicit and specific demand to lift the ban cannot be interpreted as a proposal going in that direction?
No
Maybe.
If LW could come up with some way to counter the mind-killing effects of politics, and develop a mechanism for reliably, repeatably holding discussions on politically charged issues without them devolving into irrationality, well then that would be awesome—LW would have done a great service to mankind in developing such a system. I’m just skeptical as to whether that’s possible, since it’s been tried so many times before, and so far, never succeeded. I’m definitely not saying we should give up—it’s certainly a noble goal—I just think we should be very careful about letting a failed experiment in this direction have a corrupting influence on the successful elements that LW has been able to build so far.
I agree.
No
Maybe.
If LW could come up with some way to counter the mind-killing effects of politics, and develop a mechanism for reliably, repeatably holding discussions on politically charged issues without them devolving into irrationality, well then that would be awesome—LW would have done a great service to mankind in developing such a system. I’m just skeptical as to whether that’s possible, since it’s been tried so many times before, and so far, never succeeded. I’m definitely not saying we should give up—it’s certainly a noble goal—I just think we should be very careful about letting a failed experiment in this direction have a corrupting influence on the successful elements that LW has been able to build so far.