I apologize, that specific section was more so directed at the other person you were responding to than you yourself. They were exemplifying what I was critiquing namely framing history through an idealist narrative, human nature talk, and missing of the dialectical (im not jargoning here it’s true) relationship between autonomy and centrality. Which is not ahistorical but deeply historically contingent. I hope my comments didn’t come off as an attack against either of you. It’s in the spirit of pointing out something I saw being overlooked.
i knew you weren’t attacking me. i’ll be frank with you, the other user makes me suspicious. i agree with you about eir appeals to a nebulous human nature, trying to blindside me with the grand sciences and statistics that back em up. there are fingerprints of lesswrong all over the place, i just don’t know if it’s a residual component of eir personality or not.
I apologize, that specific section was more so directed at the other person you were responding to than you yourself. They were exemplifying what I was critiquing namely framing history through an idealist narrative, human nature talk, and missing of the dialectical (im not jargoning here it’s true) relationship between autonomy and centrality. Which is not ahistorical but deeply historically contingent. I hope my comments didn’t come off as an attack against either of you. It’s in the spirit of pointing out something I saw being overlooked.
i knew you weren’t attacking me. i’ll be frank with you, the other user makes me suspicious. i agree with you about eir appeals to a nebulous human nature, trying to blindside me with the grand sciences and statistics that back em up. there are fingerprints of lesswrong all over the place, i just don’t know if it’s a residual component of eir personality or not.