And interestingly Scott’s most recent post about “genetic inferiority” is this same concept. Trying to “sticker shortcut” the idea that “genetic inferiority” is a moral judgement, and therefore suspiciously Nazi-like, when it’s often just a practical judgement.
Thanks! If I used my old approach this would've turned into a mini-novel that included a brief history of linguistics. At least now when I deal with feedback, I can do so iteratively.
I have a PhD in linguistics, so it's slightly heartbreaking to think of this brief linguistic history that could have been... Instead, I'll lean into appreciating the value of feedback and iteration.
I don't know if I agree that "unlawful" is agreed on as a central definition of murder. No one would say that the killings in the Holocaust were not murders because they were legal in the time and place they were committed. Even Cain is called the "first murderer" despite not being governed by any law at the time, not even the Ten Commandments. It seems like for something to be called murder we need some fuzzy sharing of a category between "unlawful" and "unjustified," and the more unjustified it is the less the legal status matters? We even have a category, "judicial murder," for using the law to kill someone in an unjustified way.
I think this comment is a good illustration of the sticker shortcut fallacy in action, though not one I believe to be intentional.
The most important thing to mention is that words are useless unless there is a shared understanding of their meaning. Therefore, labelling something a 'murder' doesn't really communicate any useful information to anyone else UNLESS you both already agree with its ingredients. So an inadvertent/innocent example of the fallacy I'm describing would be if someone interprets "not a murder" as "not a bad thing". This is why I always respond to categorization questions with "why does it matter if X is labelled Y?" to avoid miscommunication.
Re: Lions and the law - in tabletop roleplaying, the first and most popular game purports to rate all possible opponents - including wild animals - on Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic axes. This exact argument has led to the half-joke that wild animals have "Alignment: Hungry"
Deploying connotation-heavy language isn't necessarily always proof of evading an argument, especially if you're upfront about it. A good example is "property is theft" which the author admitted was intended to rile people up.
And interestingly Scott’s most recent post about “genetic inferiority” is this same concept. Trying to “sticker shortcut” the idea that “genetic inferiority” is a moral judgement, and therefore suspiciously Nazi-like, when it’s often just a practical judgement.
Oh wow, what a coincidence. I sent him a draft of this post just this Sunday (I doubt he ever got around to reading it).
Very nice post. I'm already really enjoying your new "write fast, break tihngs" approach. Looking forward to more essays!
Thanks! If I used my old approach this would've turned into a mini-novel that included a brief history of linguistics. At least now when I deal with feedback, I can do so iteratively.
I have a PhD in linguistics, so it's slightly heartbreaking to think of this brief linguistic history that could have been... Instead, I'll lean into appreciating the value of feedback and iteration.
The perennial quality versus quantity dilemma
I don't know if I agree that "unlawful" is agreed on as a central definition of murder. No one would say that the killings in the Holocaust were not murders because they were legal in the time and place they were committed. Even Cain is called the "first murderer" despite not being governed by any law at the time, not even the Ten Commandments. It seems like for something to be called murder we need some fuzzy sharing of a category between "unlawful" and "unjustified," and the more unjustified it is the less the legal status matters? We even have a category, "judicial murder," for using the law to kill someone in an unjustified way.
I think this comment is a good illustration of the sticker shortcut fallacy in action, though not one I believe to be intentional.
The most important thing to mention is that words are useless unless there is a shared understanding of their meaning. Therefore, labelling something a 'murder' doesn't really communicate any useful information to anyone else UNLESS you both already agree with its ingredients. So an inadvertent/innocent example of the fallacy I'm describing would be if someone interprets "not a murder" as "not a bad thing". This is why I always respond to categorization questions with "why does it matter if X is labelled Y?" to avoid miscommunication.
I had never realized but it's basically the same mechanism as "wiggin" right?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yuKaWPRTxZoov4z8K/sneaking-in-connotations
Yes, very close.
Or, for that matter, the variant "Hitler was responsible for the deaths of over 100 people!"
Technically true but the scale is so far off as to be misleading.
Re: Lions and the law - in tabletop roleplaying, the first and most popular game purports to rate all possible opponents - including wild animals - on Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic axes. This exact argument has led to the half-joke that wild animals have "Alignment: Hungry"
Deploying connotation-heavy language isn't necessarily always proof of evading an argument, especially if you're upfront about it. A good example is "property is theft" which the author admitted was intended to rile people up.