Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

REASONS FOR BLOCKING
(responding to i/o, formerly @monitoringbias post)

I/o listed the author’s criteria for blocking on Twitter. And the only differences were how the author categorized the criteria, and his tolerance for taboo subjects. Since I work on the via negativa including the taboos, I can’t block for the content per say, only for it’s delivery:

Hmm.. I block on:
…1) Decorum(GSRRM, criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It contributes nothing to the discourse and prohibits knowledge seekers with different views.
…2) Intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well (Trolls),
…3) “Overconfidence given demonstrated incompetence” Which you’d classify as magial thinking, overconfident incompetence, belief in indefensibiles and conspiracy.
…4) Oddly: for memes, which I consider demonstrating incompetency and poisoning the well of discourse.
…5) Wasting my time. I’m generous with it. I love to serve. But not if it’s a waste of my effort because the person wants to be right. 😉

And I don’t care about taboo subjects (I study them). Particularly Racism, Culture-ism, Sexism, and anti-semitism and anti-europeanism. In other words all those conflicts that we hold some investment in, that divide us.

Because there is a difference of decorum between description, criticism, defamation, and slander, which does nothing except poison the well of discourse – compared to data and explanation that dispassionately explain the causes of our taboos and conflicts.

It wasn’t impossible to work on the problems of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-europeanism, and working on them only required pinching your nose and doing the hard work to understand the causes of the conflict sufficiently to figure out how to solve them by resolving those conflicts. If that means (as economists say “going slumming” to see how the other half lives thinks, talks, and behaves” then thats what it takes to uncover causality.

Nothing is relative really. Just turns out that decidability is always and everywhere possible. And we don’t have to like some of the answers. But we can’t have nice things unless we accept and adapt to them.

Evasion of taboos prevents resolution of taboos.
The differences is, that some of us are willing to take the slings and arrows of discord, and some of us arent. And there is no shame in choosing which side of that line you want to stand on.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

REASONS FOR BLOCKING
(responding to i/o, formerly @monitoringbias post)

I/o listed the author’s criteria for blocking on Twitter. And the only differences were how the author categorized the criteria, and his tolerance for taboo subjects. Since I work on the via negativa including the taboos, I can’t block for the content per say, only for it’s delivery:

Hmm.. I block on:
…1) Decorum(GSRRM, criticism, defamation, slander, and cursing). It contributes nothing to the discourse and prohibits knowledge seekers with different views.
…2) Intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well (Trolls),
…3) “Overconfidence given demonstrated incompetence” Which you’d classify as magial thinking, overconfident incompetence, belief in indefensibiles and conspiracy.
…4) Oddly: for memes, which I consider demonstrating incompetency and poisoning the well of discourse.
…5) Wasting my time. I’m generous with it. I love to serve. But not if it’s a waste of my effort because the person wants to be right. 😉

And I don’t care about taboo subjects (I study them). Particularly Racism, Culture-ism, Sexism, and anti-semitism and anti-europeanism. In other words all those conflicts that we hold some investment in, that divide us.

Because there is a difference of decorum between description, criticism, defamation, and slander, which does nothing except poison the well of discourse – compared to data and explanation that dispassionately explain the causes of our taboos and conflicts.

It wasn’t impossible to work on the problems of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and anti-europeanism, and working on them only required pinching your nose and doing the hard work to understand the causes of the conflict sufficiently to figure out how to solve them by resolving those conflicts. If that means (as economists say “going slumming” to see how the other half lives thinks, talks, and behaves” then thats what it takes to uncover causality.

Nothing is relative really. Just turns out that decidability is always and everywhere possible. And we don’t have to like some of the answers. But we can’t have nice things unless we accept and adapt to them.

Evasion of taboos prevents resolution of taboos.
The differences is, that some of us are willing to take the slings and arrows of discord, and some of us arent. And there is no shame in choosing which side of that line you want to stand on.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute