5 ms·

"certain patterns" is still not an outline so it's hard for me to pick a set of posts. But let's go with this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20200202214359/

by mst 6y ago

"certain patterns" is still not an outline so it's hard for me to pick a set of posts. But let's go with this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20200202214359/https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200202214359/https://slatestar... since I suspect that will comfortably draw out our underlying disagreements (and if you don't know who Phedre no Delauney is, the Kushiel's Dart novels are fantastic and you've missed out).

andrewprock 6y ago
From the post you link to: "Why not assassinate prominent racist and sexist politicians and intellectuals?" I would definitely qualify these kind of straw-men as a "certain pattern" of language designed to incite rather than for insight.
- mst 6y ago
  When it's a reply to somebody speaking of war and weapons and given as a disapproving extrapolation ad absurdum of that attitude, I don't see that it's intended to incite so much as to elucidate the idea that incitement is itself a bad thing.
memexy 6y ago
andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment. If you have snippets that you think are worthwhile then feel free to post them. Associating assassination with people, even as a question, is sinister. A polite and kind person would not make that association or even ask the question because it implants the idea in the reader's mind and they start thinking antagonistically towards certain groups that he's suggesting should be "assassinated". It's terrible and dreadful writing (it elicits terror and dread in the reader). Should people ask taboo questions? Yes, they should ask such questions in private conversations with people they trust. When the interpretation is out of your hands then you need to be really careful what information you are making available to the public / audience. It's clear he doesn't think through the logic and wants to come across as smart. It's juvenile. Adults speak with intent and they address people directly and respectfully. I have never seen any adult conversations on SSC, I've only ever seen people that are peacocking their intelligence.
- CompanionCuuube 6y ago
  > andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment. But do you have a dispute for the counterpoint from mst? If so, what is it?
  - memexy 6y ago
    Which counterpoint? Several such points have been made already. Do you have a specific one in mind?
    - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
      You apparently know which one it was, and can look up the response. It isn't a very long response either. I'm not going to quote it here, because it gives you a chance to talk about it at me rather than with the original person who brought up the counterpoint.
      - memexy 6y ago
        So then you weren't asking the question in good faith. When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to. If you want me to talk to you then make a direct point instead of confused remarks about what I know and don't know and conversations I had with other people that were unrelated to you.
        CompanionCuuube 6y ago
        > So then you weren't asking the question in good faith. Yes, I was. > When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to. If you didn't know what I was referring to, then you didn't know who you were referring to when you said the following: >> andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment. > If you want me to talk to you I have no desire for you to talk to me: that was exactly why I asked you to respond to the other person and not me.

by mst 6y ago

andrewprock 6y ago

From the post you link to: "Why not assassinate prominent racist and sexist politicians and intellectuals?" I would definitely qualify these kind of straw-men as a "certain pattern" of language designed to incite rather than for insight.

mst 6y ago
When it's a reply to somebody speaking of war and weapons and given as a disapproving extrapolation ad absurdum of that attitude, I don't see that it's intended to incite so much as to elucidate the idea that incitement is itself a bad thing.

memexy 6y ago

andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment. If you have snippets that you think are worthwhile then feel free to post them. Associating assassination with people, even as a question, is sinister. A polite and kind person would not make that association or even ask the question because it implants the idea in the reader's mind and they start thinking antagonistically towards certain groups that he's suggesting should be "assassinated". It's terrible and dreadful writing (it elicits terror and dread in the reader). Should people ask taboo questions? Yes, they should ask such questions in private conversations with people they trust. When the interpretation is out of your hands then you need to be really careful what information you are making available to the public / audience. It's clear he doesn't think through the logic and wants to come across as smart. It's juvenile. Adults speak with intent and they address people directly and respectfully. I have never seen any adult conversations on SSC, I've only ever seen people that are peacocking their intelligence.

CompanionCuuube 6y ago
> andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment. But do you have a dispute for the counterpoint from mst? If so, what is it?
- memexy 6y ago
  Which counterpoint? Several such points have been made already. Do you have a specific one in mind?
  - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
    You apparently know which one it was, and can look up the response. It isn't a very long response either. I'm not going to quote it here, because it gives you a chance to talk about it at me rather than with the original person who brought up the counterpoint.
    - memexy 6y ago
      So then you weren't asking the question in good faith. When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to. If you want me to talk to you then make a direct point instead of confused remarks about what I know and don't know and conversations I had with other people that were unrelated to you.
      - CompanionCuuube 6y ago
        > So then you weren't asking the question in good faith. Yes, I was. > When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to. If you didn't know what I was referring to, then you didn't know who you were referring to when you said the following: >> andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment. > If you want me to talk to you I have no desire for you to talk to me: that was exactly why I asked you to respond to the other person and not me.