> The ghettoization proposal… honestly, I think it was too absurd to me to even generate a coherent image, but if I try to force my imagination to produce one it’s pretty horrible.
This is actually a huge part of what I was upset about, and it's really helpful to have you make that explicit: The ...(read more)
I agree and my objection doesn't rest on those grounds. Thanks for clarifying. Overall your last several comments did a lot to shift my perceptions towards the possibility of being heard, which has updated me towards a higher level of interpretive labor on my end being appropriate.
> suppose a neighborhood had a policy against loud noise unless you register a party. Only one party can be registered per night. Registration is first come first served. Tell me how this "no loudback" role changes anything?
That seems like a really weird policy for a neighborhood to have, given di...(read more)
The no-punchback rule is really the main thing for me, especially in conjunction the "it sure seems like you're playing" no-opt-out rule and the proposal that "we" ghettoize people who don't want to participate. If Duncan were _just_ saying people should get into friendly fights more often, I wouldn...(read more)
> The only thing that aligns it with the pogroms is the involvement of physical violence--and even then, I'd suspect most people would plot 'punch in the arm' closer to 'annoyingly loud music' than to 'mass murder' on the scale of harms.
A friend of mine recently suffered a concussion after being p...(read more)
I don't think "aboutness" is really a helpful concept here. Strategies might be implemented by minds that don't fully understand the strategy.
I don't see what's asymmetric about the 'no punch back' rule at all
Why would getting to punch other people be compensation for being punched, then? In what way is someone who doesn't enjoy that deriving a benefit from it?
Is it hard for you to imagine that some people might not be violent sadists?