Harry Potter And The Methods Of Rationality

Sorry, I have no idea. Isn't there a credits bit on the audio?

Not that I see. I wonder... Anybody familiar with EY's voice?

I saw some of his vlogs. Bluntly: stereotypical nerdy nasal-whiny Jewish guy. It's just not very pleasant. But maybe he improved. Also, he was defending an idea he had for a weirdtopian society where rape was legal because people were strong enough to handle it. This might have contributed to me perceiving him as sounding stupid.

That was years ago, though. I'm sure he's a better speaker now.

As I recall, the rape thing was from Three Worlds Collide. EY wanted to enforce that the morality in question was not our morality, and so force readers to examine it objectively. He wasn't advocating it.

Now, I don't personally approve of using rape as an example of that - it hits just a little too close to home, especially what with the stereotypes of nerdy men defending rape - but I can see where he's coming from.

There's a stereotype of nerdy men defending rape?

Yeah, that's a bad idea. Humans are not a rational species, they will not look at rape objectively; you assume people won't see something wrong with that and you've just marked yourself as an awful person.

In EY's defense (never thought I would say that) that may have been part of his original point.

A Rare Sentence, huh?

edited 9th Aug '14 2:20:22 PM by TheHandle

And that was one of the funniest tropes pages I have read in a long time. I had no idea that stand up comedians have spent so much time coming up with sentences no one has ever said before.

But doesn't that risk losing your readers? Eight Deadly Words and all that?

If that were true, people wouldn't read Dystopia or stories with a Villain Protagonist.

And I disagree with the "True Ending" for TWC: I think the Superhappies were right, and that we should submit ourselves to modification in order to rid ourselves of both pain and the need for it.

edited 9th Aug '14 8:54:55 PM by TheHandle

@Maxwellelvis: Have you read Three Worlds Collide"? Whatever else you can say about it, the eight deadly words ("I don't care what happens to these people") is no more likely to apply than in any other work. Whether or not people care depends on how well developed the characters are, not on what they do or how controversial the issues that are raised. The way EY presents the concept of rape can be off-putting, but he's rather obviously deliberately trying to challenge his reader's preconceptions and presenting a different way of looking at cultural values. People will care, whether they appreciate his approach to story-telling or not. They care too much, in fact.

edited 10th Aug '14 5:34:59 AM by demarquis

I refuse to be objective about a story that presents rape as anything but an appalling crime and violation; even if the culture the characters are raised in doesn't view it that way, that needs to be imparted.

So, what, put a disclaimer, "While these fictional characters condone rape as a part of their culture, this is intended to make them alien and repulsive and to highlight the fact that their culture and morals are very different from ours. We, the creators of this work, do not endorse or tolerate rape in any way, shape or form. Now please carry on."?

But that violates the entire premise of the work. The whole point was to present a scenario in which an alien race might plausibly accept rape as a normal part of their culture. And why not? They're aliens. They could literally do anything. Here on Earth, Ducks do the exact same thing, and they are a lot more closely related to us than they were.

Works for me.

Ducks aren't sapient.

edited 10th Aug '14 7:29:42 PM by maxwellelvis

Yes, but if a sapient species evolved from ducks (or cats), would they stop raping, or would they instead build their culture around it?

um, the controversy made me read the Three Worlds (yesterday and today) and the brief mention of rape puzzled me more than anything.

there are many morals and dilemmas in the story and one of the impressions i've got is that many concievable societies (cultures, value systems?) can exist, mutually incompatible, but with none clearly wrong and inferior. in this light, how can one draw the conclusion that "legalized rape => automatically awful"? here we miss the details given to explain the aliens' oddities, and without them it is impossible to say whether it is a good thing or a bad thing in the respective world (though i struggle to see how does the world work for this to be a good thing).

PS: the normal ending reminds me the impression i've got from the technical singularity, strive for immortality etc. - it should be good, but it doesn't feel right.

PPS: the true ending with Darth Sidious is so much better

at least at this moment, there is such a disclaimer under the respective chapter at Less Wrong

the whole "equality" thing only works in humans just because sexual dimorphism in humans is small. Imagine if a sapient species that had an anglerfish's differences in sex. the concept of sexual equality would be a ridiculously stupid idea for them.

edited 15th Aug '14 7:48:46 AM by willyolio

I really understand what he was trying to do but it just falls flat because it's rape. You can't just drop the R-bomb and expect people to go "Oh, this society is weird and kinda fucked up, cool." I mean the fact that the only thing people really remember from that story is that paragraph kinda says just how out there the idea is. Which is unfortunate because I think that presenting utility maximizers as the villain was inspired.

Latest Author's Note time:

http://hpmor.com/notes/progress-14-09-01/

Still on the fucking birth certificate thing? Seriously?

Sounds like Trump decided he wasn't getting enough attention in the news.

Wrong thread?

Hope so. Though it would amuse me to no end if the author of this huge tract on Rationalism turned out to be a truther.

Oops, sorry. That was supposed to go in US Politics.