3 ms·

That on certain topics, logic trumps rhetoric. That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic. And if one should point this out, guess which one is used

That on certain topics, logic trumps rhetoric. That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic. And if one should point this out, guess which one is used in response? :) (To be fair to HN: this is true of all such communities to differing degrees, but at least LessWrong as a platform at least aspires to take such things seriously*.)

throw10920 2y ago
Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? If it's the latter, I absolutely agree with you - tons of posters have double-standards and switch from logic mode to rhetoric (or even emotion) mode when there's something they don't agree with (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). But, at least aspirationally, the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil, while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic and what's not (although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines).
- mistermann 2y ago
  > Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? Both. > (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). Is it not absolutely amazing! And I bet he's otherwise fairly smart (I am speculating though, perhaps I will go through his history to get a better read). That ~no one finds this sort of thing interesting, is interesting. That ~everyone has a strong aversion to studying this phenomenon deeply is even more interesting, and it makes me wonder where that aversion comes from (mainly cultural evolution and conditioning is my guess). > But, at least aspirationally There's talking the talk, and then there is walking it. All ideologues have problems with the latter, and are rarely enthusiastic about discussing it, to put it nicely. > the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil I'm suspicious, considering how rhetorically weaponized they are. But then, maybe it's just luck or random error. > while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic My very point!! :) I'd have put "logic" in quotes though. > although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines The enforcers of the guidelines also regularly ignore them, though not "just" and "completely", which I suspect is a big part of why no one notices.

throw10920 2y ago

Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? If it's the latter, I absolutely agree with you - tons of posters have double-standards and switch from logic mode to rhetoric (or even emotion) mode when there's something they don't agree with (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). But, at least aspirationally, the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil, while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic and what's not (although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines).

mistermann 2y ago
> Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? Both. > (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). Is it not absolutely amazing! And I bet he's otherwise fairly smart (I am speculating though, perhaps I will go through his history to get a better read). That ~no one finds this sort of thing interesting, is interesting. That ~everyone has a strong aversion to studying this phenomenon deeply is even more interesting, and it makes me wonder where that aversion comes from (mainly cultural evolution and conditioning is my guess). > But, at least aspirationally There's talking the talk, and then there is walking it. All ideologues have problems with the latter, and are rarely enthusiastic about discussing it, to put it nicely. > the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil I'm suspicious, considering how rhetorically weaponized they are. But then, maybe it's just luck or random error. > while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic My very point!! :) I'd have put "logic" in quotes though. > although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines The enforcers of the guidelines also regularly ignore them, though not "just" and "completely", which I suspect is a big part of why no one notices.