so this is what getting strawmanned by a High-Status Ingroup Person feels like
there goes my productivity for the rest of the week
I was even using the goddamn content warnings
and what happened to the idea that the truthfulness of even uncomfortable ideas may be dispassionately evaluated? or does it not apply when the uncomfortable idea is ~triggering~ to a High-Status Ingroup Person? but wouldn’t that mean that we’re censoring the possible truth of “sometimes nastiness may be the most effective way of achieving some goals, even when accounting for side effects” for the sake of ~political correctness~?
if this is some kind of a deliberately ironic slytherin trick to punish me for expressing ideas one finds possibly indirectly harmful, then I must congratulate on the cleverness; but if it isn’t, I’d like to note that claiming that I’m a threat to people’s physical safety is nasty and exactly the same thing High-Status Ingrop Person was supposedly against when I said it might’ve been utilitarianly positive in the Bailey affair
@jbeshir said: I think they’re inclined to read the worst into such things, having had bad experiences that make it important to them that a repeat experience/the same experience happening to others is clearly and solidly rejected. I think you’re okay and still a pretty high status ingroup person yourself.
I mean…yes, I definitely do get where they’re coming from, and I would be lying if I claimed that a part of my reaction wasn’t about “ohfuckohfuckohfuck I’ve miscommunicated and triggered or at least severely upset someone who doesn’t deserve such things”. But there’s a certain irony in how this mirrors the way this stuff works “out there”; people don’t communicate optimally, others react to it, the reactions further cross yet another barrier of communication registers and sans active pumping against entropy shit escalates. And thus people can end up being effectively nasty even without active intent to be so.
If I wanted, I totally could spin this into something extremely destructive and evil, but instead I’m going to assume absence of adversarial activity and try to be constructive and effective instead; there’s a reason I’m a munchkin, not a warrior.
It’s a matter of morality (albeit not such a strong test of morality itself as I’m surrounded by people who would totally see through deliberate escalation and very justifiably scorn me very hard as a consequence; and there’s something awesome in knowing that the ingroup is capable of sustaining such norms to a reasonable degree which gives me faith in humanity in general) because I care more about doing right than about being perceived as being right.
When I fuck up in communication, I want to fix it, not double down on it and conclude that others are evil and wrong and trying to censor ideas they don’t like and I’m a flawless saint of purity and justice and impartiality. PR and image are tools, not terminal values.
I suppose this kind of “treat the rest of the world as constant and yourself as the only variable” is uniquely slytherin secondary but it also makes a gigantic amount of sense and it explains why the bias method outputs slytherin secondary to me because I honestly can’t imagine how any other approach would be right. “Don’t whine at the uncaring void, figure out how the void works and hack it to output the results you want.”
And I suppose this illustrates one principle I consider really important. I don’t fault @slatestarscratchpad for reacting the way he did, because I know the reasons why (and even if I didn’t, I could try to guess that there probably is something behind it, which is my default assumption that I try to always maintain). And I don’t fault myself for being shaken at the reaction and reacting. And the instant I can collect myself I set out and fix what went wrong because that’s the right thing to do. And that’s the thing Bailey fucked up epically in.
If I continued things the way I see Bailey as having continued, doubling down on the thing that upsets people very badly, and writing a shitty book about it and portraying Scott and others in a very negative light and misrepresenting everything to push a terrible narrative, people would yell at me and be nasty to me and they would be totally right to do so. But instead I’m going to be a positive example, to show that there’s a better way of dealing with such things and that Bailey indeed screwed up horribly and failed at his duties. (I won’t lie and claim that the way I can spin this to “I’m like Bailey and you’re like James and I hope you sympathize with her position a bit more now, or at least understand why she did what she did” isn’t incredibly convenient and amusing.)
I find it really hard to believe Bailey didn’t have a situation where he could’ve noticed the effects of his claims and checked that maybe there is something substantial to people’s objections; if he really never noticed such a moment, perhaps he should’ve been studying ants instead of heavily marginalized humans who are hurt in many ways by the people around them, because the latter warrants a degree of sensitivity he and others of his kind seem constitutionally incapable of displaying.
And I guess that’s what my core argument is: Bailey didn’t treat people as people, and in doing so lost some of his own being-treated-as-person protections as well. And that’s the mistake I’m very much intending to avoid. And it has nothing to do with the scientific side of the ideas themselves, but instead everything to do with how they are handled.
2 weeks ago · tagged #discourse cw #meanness cw · 19 notes · source: socialjusticemunchkin · .permalink
philippesaner liked this
malpollyon liked this
princess-stargirl liked this
not-a-lizard liked this
keepsakewhales liked this
neurocybernetics liked this
veronicastraszh reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin
speakertoyesterday liked this
socialjusticemunchkin liked this
lowgravitaswarningsignal liked this
metagorgon liked this
jbeshir liked this
nostalgebraist liked this- socialjusticemunchkin reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin and added:
I mean…yes, I definitely do get where they’re coming from, and I would be lying if I claimed that a part of my reaction...
- metagorgon reblogged this from shieldfoss and added:
“unpleasant adrenaline rush unlike many others” this is why i consider uncharitability (especially by high-status...
illidanstr liked this
shieldfoss reblogged this from socialjusticemunchkin and added:Yup, it is an unpleasant adrenaline rush unlike many others. It was something similar in a different subculture that...
- jbeshir said: I think they’re inclined to read the worst into such things, having had bad experiences that make it important to them that a repeat experience/the same experience happening to others is clearly and solidly rejected.
I think you’re okay and still a pretty high status ingroup person yourself.
funereal-disease liked this