|
|
Post by AutisticThinker on Jul 29, 2017 5:50:50 GMT
Conversational taboos serve no purpose in a rational discussion. Instead it is harmful by preventing certain rational discussions from happening.
What do others here think about them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Evan Þ on Jul 29, 2017 18:37:36 GMT
Conversational taboos can have that harmful effect, but it seems to me they can also serve the beneficial purpose of quarantining some topics where it's unusually hard to have a rational discussion. For example, take the (former?) American taboo against discussing religion or politics at the dinner table. Those're two subjects that most Americans have exceptionally firmly-rooted beliefs on, tied up with a lot of their worldview, and tied in with a lot of emotions; you probably aren't going say anything useful about it in one short evening when you're also trying to discuss other things -- if indeed you yourself are able to discuss it rationally, and your preconceptions aren't too far-removed to find any common ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by AutisticThinker on Jul 29, 2017 19:39:00 GMT
Conversational taboos can have that harmful effect, but it seems to me they can also serve the beneficial purpose of quarantining some topics where it's unusually hard to have a rational discussion. For example, take the (former?) American taboo against discussing religion or politics at the dinner table. Those're two subjects that most Americans have exceptionally firmly-rooted beliefs on, tied up with a lot of their worldview, and tied in with a lot of emotions; you probably aren't going say anything useful about it in one short evening when you're also trying to discuss other things -- if indeed you yourself are able to discuss it rationally, and your preconceptions aren't too far-removed to find any common ground. I agree with you here. We should avoid certain controversial topics in real life because too many people do not abide by this principle: slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/ I don't hate leftist values too much. However I'm concerned with leftist witchhunts. Witchhunts from the Brown Tribe is also a serious concern. However we should not have to avoid them here in our Rationalist community which should be our refuge from irrational mobs. I intend this forum to be an absolute free speech zone unlike SSC. Hence we must respect anonymity. Topics such as human biodiversity and neo-reaction have to be discussed rationally instead of getting shut down for "RACISM!!!". If the only people willing to talk about these topics rationally are Brown Tribers they will win imautomatically regardless of whether their claims are correct because the other side simply gives up the debate. If we can have rational discussions instead of ad hominem perhaps we can reach compromise with moderate Blues, Reds and Browns so that people do not further radicalize. I'm fine with anyone coming here to have a nice rational discussion because the Rationality community needs at least one forum for taboo-free discussions. However ideology-based personal attacks are not allowed. Doxxing and witchhunting are strictly forbidden. |
|
|
|
Post by Evan Þ on Jul 29, 2017 20:44:43 GMT
I haven't heard "Brown Tribe" before - from context, I'm guessing it's the people charmingly called Death Eaters on SSC?
I agree with you too: we need some space for taboo-free discussions. I don't talk politics at a family reunion, but I do talk it with my friends after dinner, and if it gets banned from that space too, how will anything political get done? Like I said back when Scott announced his new SSC censorship policy, a movement calling itself rational - especially - needs some space where people can discuss things rationally without censorship... and especially without one-sided censorship.
Or, at least, limited-taboo discussions. As Kelsey on TheUnitOfCaring said once, people who've been oppressed by X often need a space where they can commiserate about how horrible X people are. (And this remains just as true for whatever value of X.) People probably shouldn't instantly chime in there "Do you have statistical analyses of how many X are like that?" Yet on a forum like this, that sort of rational response should be encouraged, and the first sort of post should probably be squelched as an ad hominem or witchhunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by AutisticThinker on Jul 29, 2017 21:18:11 GMT
I strongly agree.
For example we have to allow discussions on race. If we rationalists do not talk about it the only people who talk about it will be leftists screaming racism and Stormfront/VNN/etc badmouthing people. In this Blue vs Brown shouting war reason is among its casualties. We can't get anything done if Browns keep screaming the N-word and Blues keep screaming "RACISM!".
Here people can come from The Root, American Renaissance, Slate or VNN. We don't care. However they have to obey the RC rules or they will get banned. Hence everyone has to be calm and polite. They can make their claims. However we will be keeping an eye on their statements. As a result they will have to concede and qualify on a bunch of points. For example if someone claims that every single major news website is owned by Jews it is very easy to refute because it is clear that RT isn't owned by Jews, nor is Al-Jazeera. So they have to restrict their statement to "All major news websites in the West (how is that term defined??) are controlled by Jews.". However there are counterexamples to that statement as well because Robert Murdoch isn't Jewish but he still runs Fox. As a result they will have to qualify their statement again to "Most major news websites in the West are controlled by Jews." or they will be irrational. Then we will examine the new claim starting from defining the terms "major news websites", "the West" and "Jews".
The Brown Tribe refers to secular and de facto secular racial nationalists and supremacists of any race. Brown is a color of the NSDAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tolbert Trot on Aug 1, 2017 22:25:27 GMT
I'd like disagree with "Conversational taboos serve no purpose in a rational discussion." in a few ways. These objections are not ordered in importance.
1. Things can serve ill purposes- purposes are not good merely by being purposes. A taboo could easily be created, enforced, or submitted to out of a purpose of harming the rational discussion within which it occurs!
2. "Rational Discussion" is a bit under-defined, I think. Perhaps its meaning is clear to you, but I can think of a few different ways to draw its boundaries: A discussion might be a rational one if all of its interlocutors are using reason as the primary (or only) means of evaluating evidence or drawing conclusions, as one possible meaning, but I think that's far too narrow. Many discussions could be imagine that fit that description that I think many of us would hesitate to brand rational. (For instance, if a discussion avoids drawing conclusions or evaluating evidence, it can easily meet the conditions!)
3. Discussions are, in practice, limited by the time and interest available to the participants. As these are limited, mutually-agreed-upon taboos can be a good way to guide the discussion to areas where the participants think valuable work can be done, and to avoid accidental entry into tarpits that would take far too long to resolve. As an example, if I wished to discuss the benefits or drawbacks of a society that discourages polygamy, I might want to taboo the related topic of whether a society should encourage or discourage any form of marriage at all- because that discussion is known to take great time and extensive argument, and it's unlikely to help us evaluate the original claim (which takes societal involvement in marriage as a given). Taboos, in this sense, are "guardrails" that parties can agree upon to make discussions more efficient.
|
|
