223 AndrewV69 March 19, 2013 at 9:21 pm
@Dan L. #205
Thanks for the long comment, I haven’t had the chance to read it just yet but I’m copying into text file so I won’t forget to.
I look forward to your response seeing as the SPs did not discuss it much.
Would you two consider doing it at the Slymepit? It would not be off-topic there vs this comment thread.
Hey Andrew, I, personally, have nothing against your invitation to them. If you will, allow me to 'interpret' how I think it would sound to Dan L. and any other of the SJW (contra Sam Harris) types.
It looks slimy and manipulative, like inviting a lamb to the slaughter. In this case, invite a lone SJW to a den of bullies to be abused, mocked, laughed at, beaten, perhaps even raped, shat on, taken photos of and published on the NYT, kicked to the curb, and as one final measure, pissed on, while the white male cops drive by giving the pitters a conspiratorial grin and a thumb's up.
So, it's pretty fucking offensive and hard to take at all seriously.
Of course, he's wrong, but he doesn't know that. Most of the SJWs reading that won't know they're wrong either.
So, don't take this the wrong way, but I think we should (by our own personal choices, and I'm no authority, and don't pretend to be, it's just a suggestion) avoid inviting obvious SJW types to the pit, for the simple reason that it will make them think you've got ulterior motives (irrational, yes, but I think that's what'll happen, practically speaking). Instead, we should invite them to a neutral space. And right now, my hunch is that the *only* sorta-kinda-neutral space they're willing to even *consider* is Nugent's blog.
So, since they're already on Nugent's blog, I, personally, would just turn my thought of writing an invite into a thought of writing a "was nice talking with you, hope you stick around on Nugent's blog comments, I'm getting something out of this conversation, thanks." If you don't feel that, don't write that, but if you want to try writing something *like* that then just think of something (even the tiniest thing) that you sincerely got out of the conversation and say that. The idea is not to swoon them into "Oh! My! I never thought pitters were even human! I was sooo wrong!" No, that's silly. The idea is *simply* to give them *some* sort of positive sign that they are not just wasting their fucking time talking to assholes. That there's *some* glimmer of hope in this discussion. So that they will *more likely* stick around and keep talking.
Basically, although Renee commented that the comments seemed hopeless, I actually think the comments around this section were making real progress. It's damn fucking slow progress. That's just how this works. It takes time and perseverance and repetition. (And it's good to take breaks and come back to it later, so you don't burn out.)
Essentially, metaphorically, what I think I'm seeing right now in that thread (this is the On the primacy ... thread, BTW), is like this:
Imagine two tribes that live on two tall (very tall) mountains. One tribe on one mountain, the other tribe on the other mountain. They live so high up on the mountains, that the valley between them is perpetually enshrouded by clouds/mist/fog whatever. But on the other hand, the mountains, by some strange geography, are very close to one another. So close, that you can shoot an arrow across from one mountain to another.
And since that's the only interaction the two tribes are able to have, and since sometimes arrows unintentionally fly astray, fly across the narrow valley and kill some innocent villager from the other tribe, for the last 1000 years, the tribes have been at constant war, slinging arrow after arrow at each other.
Then, one day, some kid is playing around with a big ball of string, ties one end of the string to an arrow and shoots it across, to try to snag a villager on the other side (and tug him off the mountainside to fall to his death, with the string). But he misses, and the arrow gets stuck in a tree.
A kid from the other tribe spots the arrow, decides to play a trick on the other kid, draws a rude picture of a woman, writes "yor mama" on it, and sends it across the valley on the string (like a clothesline; doesn't make sense, who cares, it's a metaphor).
The first kid gets the rude picture, and sends one back. Yadda yadda yadda, eventually they're sending messages now, and the question arises, "Why do you keep shooting at us?"
That's where we're at now. We just have to *keep the conversation going*. Even if we only have a flimsy string and some little slips of paper. It's better than arrows.
So. IMO, we should seriously try to find (or perhaps put together) a better neutral venue than *only* Nugent's blog. Basically, we should find an old reel of telegraph wire and send it across on the string, so we can start having more in-depth conversations, not restricted to occasional blog posts on Nugent's personal blog (not that there's anything wrong with that! Just a little inconvenient).
Perhaps a Facebook group? (Would probably suck, IMO, not enough flexibility to host topical discussions, IMO). Perhaps Nugent could set up a sub-forum on AI? Moderated by non-partisans, perhaps Nugent, perhaps his colleague Walsh. Might work.
Perhaps some other venue?
Seems clear that we need a 'broader band' of communication, and they are not ready yet to do the face-to-face thing, although I think having this neutral venue might eventually lead to that.
For doubters, I'm in no way advocating compromise or accommodation, just discussion, only that. Just communication. Please don't mistake me.