“If one side [does X] to make all of their arguments sound 5% stronger, then over long enough it adds up. Unless they want to be left behind, the other side has to make all of their arguments 5% stronger too. Then there’s a new baseline—why not 10%? Why not 20%? This mechanism might sound theoretical when I describe it this way, but go to any space where corrections are discouraged, and you will see exactly this.”
In the original post by Scott,”does X” is “lies”. But I think the use of adjectives, specially when, as otherwise pointed, they are just generally used to indicate a general valence, and not a specific mistake, may be akin to this “small lies to make your arguments sound 5% stronger”. And I furthermore think this is why it doesn’t matter if the adjective is “bad” or “wonderful”.
Besides voicing my general agreement with the OP, I’d like to bring a recent reflection by Scott Alexander (from https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/if-its-worth-your-time-to-lie-its), into this.
“If one side [does X] to make all of their arguments sound 5% stronger, then over long enough it adds up. Unless they want to be left behind, the other side has to make all of their arguments 5% stronger too. Then there’s a new baseline—why not 10%? Why not 20%? This mechanism might sound theoretical when I describe it this way, but go to any space where corrections are discouraged, and you will see exactly this.”
In the original post by Scott,”does X” is “lies”. But I think the use of adjectives, specially when, as otherwise pointed, they are just generally used to indicate a general valence, and not a specific mistake, may be akin to this “small lies to make your arguments sound 5% stronger”. And I furthermore think this is why it doesn’t matter if the adjective is “bad” or “wonderful”.