Modesty arguments often say that you should mostly or entirely bow to ‘expert consensus’ or the views of particular others, and who are you to disagree.
On Consensus and Humming in the IETF
The IETF has had a long tradition of doing its technical work through a consensus process, taking into account the different views among IETF participants and coming to (at least rough) consensus on technical matters. In particular, the IETF is supposed not to be run by a "majority rule" philosophy. This is why we engage in rituals like "humming" instead of voting. However, more and more of our actions are now indistinguishable from voting, and quite often we are letting the majority win the day without consideration of minority concerns. This document explains some features of rough consensus, what is not rough consensus, how we have gotten away from it, how we might think about it differently, and the things we can do in order to really achieve rough consensus. Note: This document is quite consciously being put forward as Informational. It does not propose to change any IETF processes and is therefore not a BCP. It is simply a collection of principles, hopefully around which the IETF can come to (at least rough) consensus.
Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about this 2015 observatio...
Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about this 2015 observation on Tumblr about the dangerous conflation of respect of personhood and the respect of authority.
Why major life decisions should be approached with ‘epistemic humility’ | Psyche Videos
At a crossroads in life? No matter how much you deliberate, one unknowable remains: the person you will be on the other side
Charlie Kirk, Ezra Klein, and the Cost of Civility-Theater Liberalism
“Talking across divides” is laudable—until it becomes a license to launder antidemocratic and dehumanizing ideas.
Respectability politics
Respectability politics, or the politics of respectability, is a political strategy wherein members of a marginalized community will consciously abandon or punish controversial aspects of their cultural-political identity as a method of assimilating, achieving social mobility,[1] and gaining the respect of the majority culture.[2]
fenc.es — be wrong on the internet, productively
Trace the map of reasonable disagreement. Break arguments into statements, rate confidence and importance, and find the crux.
Capitalism, Democracy, and Du Bois’s <em>Two</em> Proletariats
[epq-quote align="align-right"]"What can be more radical or liberating than freedom and justice for all?"[/epq-quote] As an ideal, liberal democracy has great appeal. What can be more radical or liberating than...
Fairness is what the powerful ‘can get away with’ study shows
The willingness of those in power to act fairly depends on how easily others can collectively push back against unfair treatment
Expectations and preferences around community contributions/interactions · mastodon mastodon · Discussion #36552
There is a long-running pattern of conversations on issues/PRs around some features getting quite heated and sometimes turning into personal insults, venting frustrations, borderline conspiracy acc...
Think Like a Commoner | A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons
Think Like a Commoner, Second Edition was published by New Society Publishers. The print and audiobook versions are both published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Argumentation theory | Communication and Mass Media | Research Starters | EBSCO Research
<p>Argumentation theory explores the processes and methods of reasoning and debate used by individuals in both formal and informal contexts. The theory has roots in ancient philosophical discourse, particularly from figures like Aristotle, and has evolved through the contributions of modern philosophers such as Chaïm Perelman and Stephen Toulmin. It highlights how arguments are structured, identifying key components such as claims, grounds (or data), and warrants, which collectively help participants make their case. </p> <p>Additionally, arguments can be categorized into three main types: factual claims, which are verifiable; judgment or value claims, which are subjective; and policy claims, which pertain to proposed courses of action. This framework acknowledges the influence of personal biases, often shaping the reasoning process, and emphasizes the importance of logical support, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals in strengthening arguments. In academic contexts, the theory suggests that creating valid topics should focus on policy arguments, while also addressing counterarguments to foster a comprehensive debate. Overall, argumentation theory serves as a critical tool for understanding how reasoning and persuasive communication function in various scenarios.</p>
Ignoring the Unreasonable
Illiberal and antidemocratic political forces, for example, in the form of far-right populism, are on the rise. Such politics, commonly referred to as ‘unreasonable’ in political philosophy, is widely seen as a threat to democracy. Many argue that an adequate response must involve listening to , that is, understanding and seriously considering the perspective of the unreasonable. I disagree. I argue that as democratic citizens, we should not listen to the unreasonable; we should, in a sense, ignore them, that is, refuse to understand and seriously consider their perspective, although continue to monitor their activities. Listening to the unreasonable is not instrumentally required for countering unreasonable politics. In addition, the unreasonable likely have no moral claim to be listened to. Finally, listening to them is disrespectful to reasonable citizens whose voice is ignored for the sake of paying attention to the unreasonable. For these reasons, we should ignore the unreasonable.
Steelmanning — LessWrong
Steelmanning is the act of taking a view, or opinion, or argument and constructing the strongest possible version of it. It is the opposite of strawmanning. External Posts: Against Steelmanning by Thing of Things See also: Disagreement, Ideological Turing Tests, Least convenient possible world
humble opinon: it's hard to be taken seriously when you tell everyone about respecting users' agency and then force a change of *their content presentation* with no controls in other words: why do y'all have so much care at the protocol level and seems to have so little on everything user facing?!
