4 ms·

I'm less sure of this, but although correctness may not be a goal but I think in jockeying for position they are expressing an understanding of what will hurt o

by platz 8y ago

I'm less sure of this, but although correctness may not be a goal but I think in jockeying for position they are expressing an understanding of what will hurt or help them. I'm not sure I'm ready to say it is for position alone they are fighting for in the truest postmodern sense (sorry for using that word). I would like to think values and cultures have actual meaning instead of being completely content-free; and even if it was so our actions in accordance with those beliefs pretend they are real even if we may doubt them.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Maybe I'm a bit too cynical about this. I'm not ready to state that values in public discourse are always completely content-free. But they also aren't treated as content-full either. Some reasons I observed: 1) Some people have a very simplistic view of their values. "More of value $V good, less value $V bad. $controversial-option-X increases $V, therefore good." They do not think through it enough to realize when the option they're supporting is actually detrimental to $V long-term, or to other values they hold dear. Or the option may even be detrimental to value $V directly, but in an non-obvious way (e.g. via second-order effects). 2) Groups can and do behave in self-destructive ways. Scott Alexander discussed at length[0] the cases where groups have to choose between being either ineffective, or so annoying that they create their own opposition. 3) There are cases where group's thought leaders only ostensibly profess some honourable value, but in reality use it as a cover to pursue different goals, often causing damage to the value they hide behind. (Yes, I have particular examples for all those points from recent controversies, but I won't name them here to avoid completely derailing this thread.) -- [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
- platz 8y ago
  Great points

by platz 8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Maybe I'm a bit too cynical about this. I'm not ready to state that values in public discourse are always completely content-free. But they also aren't treated as content-full either. Some reasons I observed: 1) Some people have a very simplistic view of their values. "More of value $V good, less value $V bad. $controversial-option-X increases $V, therefore good." They do not think through it enough to realize when the option they're supporting is actually detrimental to $V long-term, or to other values they hold dear. Or the option may even be detrimental to value $V directly, but in an non-obvious way (e.g. via second-order effects). 2) Groups can and do behave in self-destructive ways. Scott Alexander discussed at length[0] the cases where groups have to choose between being either ineffective, or so annoying that they create their own opposition. 3) There are cases where group's thought leaders only ostensibly profess some honourable value, but in reality use it as a cover to pursue different goals, often causing damage to the value they hide behind. (Yes, I have particular examples for all those points from recent controversies, but I won't name them here to avoid completely derailing this thread.) -- [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/

platz 8y ago
Great points