3 ms·

I guess I should clarify that I don't think you were arguing in bad-faith ("moving the goalposts" is a bit a of a charged phrase in the current political climat

• wizzwizz4 6y ago
  It's frustrating that so few people argue on simulacrum level 1. (Reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity?commentId=JTcLcW8tcBQwmRJPu https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-...) Moving the goalposts is bad arguing. Bad arguing is often due to bad-faith arguing; but good arguing is hard, so it's also often accidental. Yet, people equate pointing out flaws in an argument with accusations of intellectual dishonesty: it's been politicised.
  • jooize 6y ago
    Thank you for these thoughts and that link. Spent an hour reading there, the article[1], and about The Gervais Principle[2]. [1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-and-subjectivity https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fEX7G2N7CtmZQ3eB5/simulacra-... [2]: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...