Observing this discussion, it occurs to me (not for the first time) that it would be nice if people discussing the topic took each other's words literally, didn't take them to mean anything beyond the literal meaning.
xenophanes says "Our way of life is better" and argues for "giv[ing] them access to technology and to our way of life" and against "[p]reserving their backwards culture", "actions that maintain them in that lifestyle", and "[t]rying to minimize contact". Then raganwald appears to hear "It's justified to force them to follow our way of life" appended to xenophanes's post and proceeds to argue against this (mentioning two historical examples); it takes another post by xenophanes to explain that he neither said nor meant that.
Elsewhere, d3x says "You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them", and the italicized part is, again, not part of what xenophanes said. xenophanes replies saying "I did not advocate forced conversion", plus a bit of ranting about a "left wing way of thinking" which probably led to enough downvotes to keep it at 2 and provoked a 10-point reply devoted solely to the "left wing" comment and a 9-point reply devoted half to it and half to the original topic.
Also, DanielBMarkham jumps in with a reply to d3x, making basically the same points as xenophanes--saying "If they are happy with a life expectancy of 30, [etc....], if they want that life, let them have it", arguing to "show and tell them what they are missing and let them decide", arguing against "inaction" and "let[ting] people suffer when we can help them stop [i]f they so desire". And d3x replies arguing against "[the idea that] their lives are so bad" (which does address what he said), "feel[ing] ... that I have the right to be condescending when discussing their way of life-" (which at least addresses his comment, though I think it's unfair) "-and I have the obligation to convert them to my way of thinking" (which is not what he said). d3x also draws a comparison between DanielBMarkham's arguments and historical arguments to justify slavery, a reductio ad absurdum that might conceivably be aimed at Markham's actual arguments, but that I imagine was aimed at an argument d3x read into Markham's comment.
This entire tree of discussion is full of this sort of putting-words-in-your-mouth. Even xenophanes's reply to raganwald's original comment may be guilty of this--raganwald originally argued against "massacring technologically inferior peoples" and "keep[ing] them alive but destroy[ing] their culture and identity while mouthing platitudes about how we were helping them", which does not say anything about the deliberate "preserving their backwards culture" or "[t]rying to minimize contact" that xenophanes proceeds to argue against. xenophanes doesn't directly say something to indicate that this is intended as a rebuttal to raganwald's comment, and it was his first post in this thread (I think), so maybe he was just making a general statement of his position (which I personally would upvote)... but I could also interpret it as yet another misguided rebuttal to things someone didn't say and didn't mean.
So, guys, please become more autistic and interpret things literally; it would cut out the need for a lot of the anger and "No that isn't what I said" noise in this thread.
I'm joking about the autism, but seriously, there are 277 comments on this story and I think reading-and-replying-to-things-that-weren't-written is the reason for most of them.
I was indeed commenting not only to what Raganwald said explicitly but also on what I took to be the full meaning. This turned out to be worthwhile b/c many other commenters believed the position I first thought Raganwald held -- I knew it wasn't a rare straw man no one believes.
I think it's pretty harmless to guess what people mean and reply to issues they didn't directly raise as long as you try to keep things pretty impersonal and focus on issues that are worth discussing in their own right. I don't think it's avoidable to make some guesses about what other people mean b/c writing is never 100% clear (plus lots of people are in the habit of being unclear so if you don't add substantial interpretation for them they blame you for being difficult).
I don't particularly object to Raganwald misunderstanding me at first. We got on the sort of the same page in only a couple comments. Honestly I consider that fast/good. It's the 3 people who assumed or wanted me to be joking b/c they disagreed with me that I have a problem with... The guy posting intentional ad hominems against me. The guy posting that he's lowering his opinion of HN b/c I got upvoted. All the people who take or make stuff personal and don't focus on the issues and post nasty stuff without argument and don't correct their misunderstandings even after clarifications...
I actually think it's just that difficult a problem. Whether we decide to contact them or not, in a sense we're still deciding _for_ them whether or not they will have access to technology that will fundamentally reshape their culture.
In a sense it also isn't our place to _care_ if _they_ decide to fundamentally reshape their culture based on what we "give" them.
Both of these viewpoints have been important in world history. Would Africa be so violent if there were less people selling them guns? Is it our right to _not_ sell guns to people if we know they're going to be used for violence that is, in our eyes, senseless?
Mostly I see polite disagreement in this topic. If we're putting words in mouths, it's because those words are the natural conclusion proceeded to upon viewing the actually mouthed words from the opposite perspective.
A numerical majority of comments are probably polite, yes, but here are some quotes...
"Your reply is so laced with hypocrisy its disgusting."
"Talk about arrogance...and ignorance."
"I really hope you are kidding. If not this is so typical..."
Next, you say: "If we're putting words in mouths, it's because those words are the natural conclusion proceeded to upon viewing the actually mouthed words from the opposite perspective."
Obviously that wasn't the conclusion of the person who holds this opposite perspective. If you think their words imply a monstrous conclusion, then either they must be a monster, or their thought process leads to a different conclusion, and if you want to carry out a constructive conversation, you should assume the latter and press them. Here's a part of my above post that I didn't include, but I will now:
--
Probably it would help if you a) noticed when you read things into comments (be on your guard when discussing politics or morals) and b) explicitly said so when you addressed a claim someone didn't make. For example, d3x could have said something like, "You say that our lives are so much better than theirs, that contact with primitive cultures destroys those cultures, that you'd have to be a flaming idiot to want to live like that.... Do you therefore advocate forcing them to live like us? [You could answer that by reading the third paragraph of Markham's post--"let them decide"--but perhaps d3x thought that was a sarcastic quip, which I suppose is believable. Another tip for navigating rocky topics: don't assume sarcasm unless you're quite sure.] If so, then I've got a lot to say about that. <insert text of d3x's original post> If not, then precisely what do you advocate?"
And then DanielBMarkham could have said something like... well, I'm not him and I don't speak for him, but perhaps he'd say something like, "No, I don't advocate that. What do I advocate? Well, I don't prescribe a particular course of action, but let's take an example. A group of people who felt generous might visit them in a boat, set up a demonstration of modern technology on the shore, and offer to teach anything to natives who wanted to learn."
And maybe d3x would reply, "They'd just stay on the shore, teaching them and getting nothing in return? Who'd be that generous? They'd only do it if they had an ulterior motive--to convert them to their religion, to get cheap unskilled labor from them, to trick them into selling their natural resources for much less than they're worth, and everything else that's gone wrong in the past."
And maybe Markham would say, "Oh, snap, that's a problem," or he'd say "Maybe a rich billionaire who felt charity-minded (or PR-minded) would fund the whole effort, and these teachers would follow through with it because they'd be paid," or he'd say "Dude, doing unskilled labor for a price that's ridiculously cheap to us might look like horrible exploitation to you, but in fact it's better than the lives they currently lead. The fact that they choose it over their current lives is proof that it's better, unless you wish to argue that you know better than them, which is hypocritical given your earlier argument." But this is just me talking now.
--
Regarding guns: I would recommend being careful and slow about giving them war materials (or the capability to make them) in case one party gets hold of them and attempts to conquer the rest of the island. But it's not a moral/legal imperative, any more than it is to be careful about introducing college kids to alcohol. (People may hate you if you do it badly, but they can't really stop or punish you.) I'll comment that any civilization that advances in science and has access to plentiful resources will eventually develop all sorts of weapons, including guns; and that the developments of fire, bronze, iron, steel, flight, nuclear physics, and many more things all led to weapons as well as productive tools, and I think it was worth it.
Disease is the objection I find most potentially problematic. Also, one part of me says it would be interesting to let them be so we could watch them, study them; another part says that if I knew someone in there, and she was sick with a disease that modern medicine could cure, I would sure as hell want to save her. Or if I knew someone working his butt off, and I knew I could give him some technological tools that would make it ten times easier for him, I'd do that.
I think that's the best way it can happen: if some individual people from one society are connected with some individual people in the other, and they get and use some advanced things whenever they feel the need. Then their neighbors might see the results, decide they want some advanced things too, and try to work out a way to get them. Maybe a few families would want to send their (young adult) kids out to the advanced society so they could stay for a while, learn things and get things, and bring them back home. Or maybe they'd move out with their kids, young children, and raise their family and run a career for a decade or two, periodically sending gifts and maybe visiting their extended family in the old country, perhaps moving back eventually. You know, this is sounding a good deal like what some immigrants from poor countries to the U.S. do today.
xenophanes says "Our way of life is better" and argues for "giv[ing] them access to technology and to our way of life" and against "[p]reserving their backwards culture", "actions that maintain them in that lifestyle", and "[t]rying to minimize contact". Then raganwald appears to hear "It's justified to force them to follow our way of life" appended to xenophanes's post and proceeds to argue against this (mentioning two historical examples); it takes another post by xenophanes to explain that he neither said nor meant that.
Elsewhere, d3x says "You are basically saying that your beliefs and way of life are so superior and better than theirs that you must convert them", and the italicized part is, again, not part of what xenophanes said. xenophanes replies saying "I did not advocate forced conversion", plus a bit of ranting about a "left wing way of thinking" which probably led to enough downvotes to keep it at 2 and provoked a 10-point reply devoted solely to the "left wing" comment and a 9-point reply devoted half to it and half to the original topic.
Also, DanielBMarkham jumps in with a reply to d3x, making basically the same points as xenophanes--saying "If they are happy with a life expectancy of 30, [etc....], if they want that life, let them have it", arguing to "show and tell them what they are missing and let them decide", arguing against "inaction" and "let[ting] people suffer when we can help them stop [i]f they so desire". And d3x replies arguing against "[the idea that] their lives are so bad" (which does address what he said), "feel[ing] ... that I have the right to be condescending when discussing their way of life-" (which at least addresses his comment, though I think it's unfair) "-and I have the obligation to convert them to my way of thinking" (which is not what he said). d3x also draws a comparison between DanielBMarkham's arguments and historical arguments to justify slavery, a reductio ad absurdum that might conceivably be aimed at Markham's actual arguments, but that I imagine was aimed at an argument d3x read into Markham's comment.
This entire tree of discussion is full of this sort of putting-words-in-your-mouth. Even xenophanes's reply to raganwald's original comment may be guilty of this--raganwald originally argued against "massacring technologically inferior peoples" and "keep[ing] them alive but destroy[ing] their culture and identity while mouthing platitudes about how we were helping them", which does not say anything about the deliberate "preserving their backwards culture" or "[t]rying to minimize contact" that xenophanes proceeds to argue against. xenophanes doesn't directly say something to indicate that this is intended as a rebuttal to raganwald's comment, and it was his first post in this thread (I think), so maybe he was just making a general statement of his position (which I personally would upvote)... but I could also interpret it as yet another misguided rebuttal to things someone didn't say and didn't mean.
So, guys, please become more autistic and interpret things literally; it would cut out the need for a lot of the anger and "No that isn't what I said" noise in this thread.
I'm joking about the autism, but seriously, there are 277 comments on this story and I think reading-and-replying-to-things-that-weren't-written is the reason for most of them.