domain:felipec.substack.com
drmanhattan16
8m ago
I think you're getting at an important point. People don't like to think that others are doing things to them mentally. We make a compromise - don't make your thoughts other people's problems. If you want to masturbate to a classmate, you can't be stopped, just don't tell them you did that.
ControlsFreak
46m ago
Ok, so once we're epsilon onto a slippery slope, you're "not going to argue about the specifics". Got it. So, you could just respond to those comments by explicitly stating this, yes?
Do you hold this position for all possible claims of slippery slopes? Do you agree that gay marriage is just one more spot on the slippery slope to marrying dogs, and any argumentation about specifics is somewhere between fruitless and an entirely misguided endeavor? Or do you think there is room to discuss some sort of framework for claims of slippery slopes, that perhaps all slopes might not be equally slippery, or something along these lines? Or just nah to all that. "Gay marriage, slippery slope, dog marriage, QED." ?
ControlsFreak
17m ago
Sorry, I realized that there was one part of my prior comments that could be misinterpreted, so I deleted my comment and redid it. I also posted in haste the first time. I thought I deleted it quickly enough that it wouldn't matter. My apologies.
ControlsFreak
19m ago
I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into.
By all means, bite.
where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.
Here, there is one part of my language that I admit may be ambiguous and possibly misread. The "instantaneous" piece means "the premises necessary for the instantaneous logical chain of implications". Remember, they are explicitly claiming that once you are epsilon past the line, it's not worth even talking about. I take that to mean that instantaneously, in that moment, the entire logical chain of the slippery slope has been instantiated, and the conversation is over. I do not mean to imply that they think that innovation, itself, actually stops instantaneously. But they do actually mean that, in that moment, instantaneously, the game is over, the logic is iron-clad, the implications flow immediately, and the only conclusion is absolute death. That absolute death may take some time to culminate, in my understanding of their view, but that it is absolutely inevitable is instantaneously concludable from the moment that you cross over the epsilon regulation mark.
I have never done this. Stop lying about what I've done.
I can concede a misunderstanding, but then I'm confused why are you criticizing them for bad arguments, if that's not an implicit demand to bring better ones (as the ones outlined in your examples)
I never said that they claimed that it was instantaneous. Stop lying about what I've said.
A quote from you:
but have objected to hyperbolic versions of them, that any epsilon amount of regulation instantly kills innovation to zero, for example. Some folks have quadrupled down on this hyperbolic claim
So it seems you are, again, accusing others of what you do yourself.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
31m ago
You have opened with sneers, the relevant fragments were already quoted to you. I never said you should put forward a complete framework. Much like you are demanding of others and are refusing to give yourself, I said you should start with anything anyone can bite into. You have baited people into a low-quality pissing contest, and are acting upset that they took the bait.
I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately.
Again: where is the part where they say they death of innovation is instantaneous and absolute? If you can't show that part, you have misrepresented their view precisely to the amount you are claiming they have misrepresented yours.
ControlsFreak
36m ago
I started by opening the conversation to a variety of perspectives on the issue at hand and an observation on the culture war component of it. I did not claim to endeavor to present a complete framework, nor has anyone even asked me to. When folks have wanted to have interesting discussions on particulars, I've engaged, and it's been fruitful. Full of details. Plenty of information about my position. I haven't even asked for a full and complete framework from anyone; even just a little attempt at talking about types of slippery slopes and such would be fine, but what I've gotten in return is literally on the level of, "Gay marriage, slippery slope, dog marriage, QED." Thinking that we can mayyyyybe do a tiny bit better than that in thinking about a framework for understanding slippery slopes is not a demand for a complete and total theory. It's a request to even try.
I never once misrepresented my opponents' views. They still explicitly claim that I represented them appropriately. Nor have I once demanded that they get mine exactly right. It is entirely a mess that they have created. Perhaps they viewed my observation of the culture war component as a sneer, got personally offended, and lost all capacity for rational argumentation, and I could be partially blamed for that. In that case, I would suggest that you focus on what part of my observation of the culture war component was wrong, for just because it was interpreted as a sneer and caused offense does not mean that was not true and necessary.
RegularlyExpressed
38m ago
My annoyance with some of the other issues here aside, what exactly do they imagine is to be done about the supposed epidemic of women being targeted for violence by men? Is there really a generalized belief that the problem is insufficient scolding or insufficient laws targeting this variety of crime?
It makes sense if you hold to the belief in strict blank-slateism.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
9m ago
You're trying to use "rational discussion" as a cudgel to get people to accept your conclusion that a regulatory framework is a good idea and the rational thing to do is argue over the details. And you're doing it clumsily.
pigeonburger
29m ago
Desperately try to get back in a sexy mood by thinking of literally anything but Ted Cruz.
Let's say you were in charge of fixing this from the advertising side of things.
I guess manufacturers are in a tough position there because the lower level of knowledge means that quite uncomfortable things have to be put on the packaging. They can get away with putting the warnings in the 100 page manual for the toaster; it would put off buyers if the toaster they were looking at proeminently displayed "This toasted WILL kill you if you plug it in and take it for a bath!". Similarly, a baby monitor whose box said something like "Unless properly secured, this monitor can allow strangers to connect and listen in or talk to your child" will find itself selling less than the one that omits it.
I suppose the best move is to spin it as a feature. Put it proudly on the box! "Crowdsource your child's safety with the default password mode!"
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
43m ago
Gay marriage was on a slippery slope down to all the trans stuff we have today. I don't know if the slope ends before dog marriage. Not sure what that has to do with a regulatory framework being a slippery slope towards the death of innovation.
Because not all slippery slopes logically entail exactly whatever anyone can just throw out there as a possible conclusion? So, perhaps, you're throwing out "death of innovation" as the end of the slope, but that's actually akin to "dog marriage". And someone else might throw out a different possibility as the end of the slope, and that's akin to trans stuff. A reasonable conversation can be had about the connection between gay marriage and those two different possible end points, just like a reasonable conversation can be had here about this regulation and different possible end points. You would simply terminate the conversation immediately and conclude that it must be dog marriage/death of innovation. This seems like a pretty obvious non sequitur, a conversation killer, a mind killer, and the enemy of rational discussion.
More options
Context Copy link