5 ms·

"It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said. Also: y

by philh 9y ago

"It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said. Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.) Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less. Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)

s73ver_ 9y ago
""It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said." Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. "Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)" In what way? "Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less." Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements? "Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)" I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.
- philh 9y ago
  > Completely wrong. I said like four different things (not incompatible/persuasive/Bulverism/should not have been said), and I'm quite sure you don't disagree with all of them, but I'm not sure what you do disagree with. I certainly do not think that people are robots who operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. That is not even close to a thing that I think, and I think I can vaguely see how you got that impression, but it's just wrong. I'm sorry, I sometimes trigger that impression in people, I know this but I'm not very good at avoiding it. > In what way? In what way would I like to be called out? "This is Bulverism" would be fine. > Do what less? In this specific case, Bulverism. At other times, other kinds of speech too, like slurs, gibberish, factually untrue statements. (This is not an exhaustive list.) > I very much do believe they lack empathy. Well, uh. Okay. Tangents upon tangents, but - do you think that because that's the only possible explanation you can think of, for why he said what he said? Or some other reason? I note that your stated beliefs about my internal experiences do not match my actual experience of my internal experiences. Does that make you less confident in your beliefs about Jess' internal experiences? > I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem. Again, not even close to what I'm pushing for. (For example, "it should not have been said" is not a pure factual statement.) Also, I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.

by philh 9y ago

s73ver_ 9y ago

""It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said." Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. "Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)" In what way? "Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less." Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements? "Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)" I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.

philh 9y ago
> Completely wrong. I said like four different things (not incompatible/persuasive/Bulverism/should not have been said), and I'm quite sure you don't disagree with all of them, but I'm not sure what you do disagree with. I certainly do not think that people are robots who operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. That is not even close to a thing that I think, and I think I can vaguely see how you got that impression, but it's just wrong. I'm sorry, I sometimes trigger that impression in people, I know this but I'm not very good at avoiding it. > In what way? In what way would I like to be called out? "This is Bulverism" would be fine. > Do what less? In this specific case, Bulverism. At other times, other kinds of speech too, like slurs, gibberish, factually untrue statements. (This is not an exhaustive list.) > I very much do believe they lack empathy. Well, uh. Okay. Tangents upon tangents, but - do you think that because that's the only possible explanation you can think of, for why he said what he said? Or some other reason? I note that your stated beliefs about my internal experiences do not match my actual experience of my internal experiences. Does that make you less confident in your beliefs about Jess' internal experiences? > I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem. Again, not even close to what I'm pushing for. (For example, "it should not have been said" is not a pure factual statement.) Also, I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.