| Ruby | v0.2.0Sep 16th 2020 | (+4/-5) | ||
| Ruby | v0.1.0Sep 16th 2020 | (+134/-158) | ||
| CronoDAS | v0.0.21Oct 15th 2012 | (+7/-7) Typo | ||
| PeerInfinity | v0.0.20Jan 4th 2010 | (+1/-1) | ||
| Zack_M_Davis | v0.0.19Nov 16th 2009 | (+1/-85) bylines, cleanup tag | ||
| bogus | v0.0.18Oct 10th 2009 | (+86/-88) correction | ||
| Eliezer Yudkowsky | v0.0.17Oct 9th 2009 | (+7/-180) (that's not why we avoid politics) | ||
| bogus | v0.0.16Oct 4th 2009 | (+8) | ||
| bogus | v0.0.15Oct 4th 2009 | (+783/-13) | ||
| PeerInfinity | v0.0.14Sep 28th 2009 | (+75/-75) |
In articles at Overcoming Bias"Blues and Less Wrong, the words "Blues" and "Greens" are oftenGreens" is a term used to metaphorically refer to two opposing political factions.
See also: Tribalism, Mind-killer, Arguments as soldiers, False dilemma, In-group bias
The terms come from the names of chariot racing teams, that differed in nothing but the team colors, but the rivalry of whose fans sometimes reached the level of gang wars.1 By definition, politics also deals with matters that people physically fight over in the real world -- or at least, matters that are to be enforced by the government's monopoly on violence.
Politics commonly involves an adversarial process, where factions usually identify with political positions, and use arguments as soldiers to defend their side. When tempered by appropriate standards of evidence, rules of order and other safeguards, such a process may be the only way of introducing a modicum of deliberative truth truth-seeking and other virtues of rationality into an inherently violent domain. However, the dichotomies presented by the opposing sides are often false dilemmas, which can be shown by presenting third options.
For a varieryvariety of reasons, Less Wrong tries to avoid political disputes: see Mind-killer.
Compare theFor a variery of reasons, Less Wrong tries to avoid political disputes: see virtues of rationality with the political virtues identified by Bernard CrickMind-killer.
Less Wrong does not concern itself with political disputes, since they raise complex issues which go far beyond our definition of rationality. This can be readily seen by comparingCompare the virtues of rationality with the political virtues identified by Bernard Crick.
Less Wrong does not concern itself with political disputes, since they raise complex issues which go far beyond our definition of rationality. This can be readily seen by comparing the virtues of rationality with the political virtues identified by Bernard Crick.
The terms come from the names of chariot racing teams, that differed in nothing but the team colors, but rivalry of whose fans sometimes reached the level of gang wars.1 By definition, politics also deals with matters that people physically fight over in the real world -- or at least, matters that are to be enforced by the government's monopoly on violence.
PoliticalPolitics commonly involves an adversarial process, where factions usually identify with political positions, and use arguments as soldiers to defend their side. When tempered by appropriate standards of evidence, rules of order and other safeguards, such a process may be the only way of introducing a modicum of deliberative truth seeking and other virtues of rationality into an inherently violent domain. However, suchthe dichotomies presented by the opposing sides are often false dilemmas, which can be shown by presenting third options.
Less Wrong does not concern itself with political disputes, since they raise complex issues which go far beyond our definition of rationality. This can be seen by comparing the virtues of rationality with the political virtues identified by Bernard Crick.
The
termsterm come from the names of chariot racing teams, that differed in nothing but the team colors, but the rivalry of whose fans sometimes reached the level of gang wars.1 By definition, politics also deals with matters that people physically fight over in the real world -- or at least, matters that are to be enforced by the government's monopoly on violence.