When considering incentives, consider the incentives of all parties

I agree with other commenters that this reads like an obfuscated version of some real-world issue (perhaps A and B are white and black people in the USA or men and women or something?), and it ends up (for me, at least) not working well either as an oblique commentary on any real-world issue or as an abstract discussion of how to think well: it feels like politics and therefore stirs up the same defensive reflexes, the obfuscation makes it hard to be sure what the actual point is, I'm wasting brainpower trying to "decode" what I'm reading, and it's full of incidental details that I can't tell whether I need to be keeping track of (because they're probably highly relevant if this is a coded discussion of some real-world issue, but not so relevant if they're just illustrations of a general principle or even just details added for verisimilitude).

I propose the following principle: the mind-killing-ness of politics can't be removed merely by light obfuscation, so if you want to talk about a hot-button issue (or to talk about a more general point for which the hot-button issue provides a good illustration) it's actually usually better to be explicit about what that issue is. Even if only to disavow it by saying something like "I stumbled onto this issue when arguing about correlations between race and abortion among transgender neoreactionaries, but I think it applies more generally. Please try not to be distracted by any political applications you may see -- they aren't the point and I promise I'm not trying to smuggle anything past your defences.".

As to the actual point the article is (explicitly) making: I agree but it seems kinda obvious. Of course considering the incentives on all sides may be difficult to do when you're in the middle of a political battle, but I'm not sure that having read an article like this will help much in that situation.

Once upon a time ...

I'm curious. For those in their 20s, how were you taught to write essays?

Back in the Stone Age when I was growing up, we were taught to have a thesis statement early on so that our readers would know what we were going to be talking about. Here's where we're going with this. Is that entirely out of fashion?

My advisor in grad school expanded on this, to here's the issue, here's the thesis, here's how we're going to get there. A tidy map to let the reader know where we're going, to make it easier to know what to look for to follow along with the progress of the trip.

After a couple of paragraphs, I have no idea where this is going, Are we setting up some analogy to current events, or just setting up the context in which some thesis operates? I don't know, and I find I just don't care enough to continue reading.

I have often griped about essays here, suggesting that people start with an abstract. But here, I want to get get some information on how people are being taught to write. I'm often infuriated by journalists these days, as they write and write and write, and I wonder and I wonder and I wonder where the hell it's all going. Are people doing this on purpose?

Are they being taught to do this? If so, what are the specifics of the pedagogy involved?

This isn't about rationality and incentives. Treating groups as if they were individuals is politics.

If this is supposed to be a name swap for an actual conflict its too mangled to get throught. On the otherhand it seems messy and unclear as a pure hypothetical. It is some kind abstraction over many such conflicts? Alpago and Byzantine also seem awfully integrated into a single economy and how a country membership now is an economic class. I would expect two countries economies to mainly funciton within their own context and mechanicsw and not so automatically lean to others.

Also such phrases as "everyone who is reasonable now acknowledges that" are very shaded. I don't know whether it was intended to be used in that capacity its not a automatic "beyond reasonable doubt" disclaimer. Somewhat recently when I thought there were such stances and they "didn't get shot down" made me doubt the objectiveness of such claims. After hell experiences a couple of winters "when hell freezes" no more means "never". Addtionally what is the difference between "you are saying X but you are not reasonable" and "you are saying X, but you are just biased"? Also it can be understood as an expression of closed mindedness. No matter what your reasons or evidence they must be wrong if that is the conclusion. Or that if you say X I am going to disbelieve you as a person.

Well, I will rephase. I think pre-meditated killing of another human being against the targets will outside of immidiet self-defence in times of peace should be illegal. That should disinclude capital punishment and allow for possbility of euthanasia. Cops can still gun down gun nuts, but essentially only when they violently resist arrest.

I was thinking of the word "murder" in a more neutral "pre-meditated act of causing the death of another human being for the sake of it" sense. Over what it is legitemate to declare war I leave to separate consideration but I consider it important they be declared. Capital punishment for war crimes I am less worried about althought I am happy and accepting of my countrys stance that its not a valid legal consequene even for them.

Some people would say that it might be considerable for extremely bad crimes but I disagree. I think for example that Norway had adequate and proper consequence for Breivik. Everyone whoms beliefs I have got even a little traction of that favours for a consequence of death for him has essentially the same flaw in logic that the motive of itself Breivik did, that violences solves something or meaningfully communicates something. Argument via stick is not a persuasive argument.

Yes, its my own rather limited special group rather than being universal. But I think we don't think we are especially non-murdery but see it as a natural extension on civilization eradicating free-for-all murder. But I guess on other systems the state merely has a monopoly on murder that it can do at its discretion.

While its true that given signficant poltical will it could be changed it migth not be true that majority of the relevant countriers think its okay/neutral to do. The political process involves compromises and this can be an accepted downside. Also inhibiting dispersion of political ideas either by limiting media or removing opposing political stances means the choice is not that cognitive. In a way by doing such things the actors admit that its worthwhile to bother doing it meaning they don't dare face the "fair fight" where the people have all the options available and are informed about all the choices. So when the process is rigged its outcome isn't as strong an argument to show what the people want.

Maybe its the question of what are the relevant crime statistics. Having heard and read about such a black person committing a serious violence is more likely to get death-sentence while a white gets life in prison. Compared to a general population there are disproportionally more black people doing crimes. However if you controlled for socioeconomical status a lto of it could be that blacks are majority in poor areas. But even then its common to hear stories where police are more active in regards to black people. They also tend to use more serious measures against them. A black person doesn't need to be armed for a cop to start fearing for his life and discharging weapons and tasers.

There is even the joke of "Well white people can't use the N word but atleast we can use phrases like 'thanks, for the warning officer'". There is reason to suspect that there are a lot of "false positives" of black people being processed by the legal system where a lighter process could have sufficed. Still it gives an order of magnitude that the prospensity to convict blacks for murder and such is weaker than overall prospensity to charge blacks for crimes.

This is a hypothetical. Perhaps I should have said a 100 years in instead of 50, but, for example, practically all Americans acknowledge that slavery was wrong.

I just mean that I am part of the group that thinks murder outside of war should be illegal. I not a relativist in the sense that for others its negation should/could hold. I think they are wrong and misguided and their reasons for their belief and their stated reasons are insufficient. I could be deluded that everybody things that murder is wrong. but no there are people that genuinely believe and effectively enact that running a country by a few murders is appropriate.

Stane on hate speech that is encouraging and calling for criminal acts is okay to be punishable but purely communicative speech should be allowed. Having a minority political opinion should not in itself be a basis for punishment (and is not sufficient grounds for "political instability" security arguments).

But even if the speech freeness conditions are not perfect I don't think it gives basis to go invade or mess too much with internal affairs of a state. But it does mean for me that it is more okay to treat the countrys offiical stance to be attirbuted as of their opinion on who are in (de facto) power. There are lines of argument in that if the leadership deviates too much from the will of the people they would bother to revolt to revoke the technically illegimately held power. Thus even power illegimately gained needs to be atleast passively accepted granting it a sort of genuine legitimacy. But here arguments about how cost-effective it is to genuinely influence the political direction are strong. If there is a official position and disagreeing with it gets you murdered it does tell what the legitimate stance would be.

I am suspecting taht the reason is that poors are more liekly to commit crimes and using race as a proxy for social-economical status doesn't add anything significant. That is "high-black area-> high-crime area" is a correlation not a causation.

I guess my main emphasis was that police have more readiness to use force against blacks than against whites. The tendency for media to give attention selectively doesn't totally explain it. There are also additional media effects that play a role. A story is more likely to be a news story if it features a white victim as opposed to a black victim. And for example in the recent gorilla story somehow the father that was not on the scene was found relevant even with his past being somehow relevant. A embarassing reason for it is probably because there were details that resonated with casting that person in a villain role.

Black people are searched more often, their treatment while police direct actions towards them is more hostile. a black person doesn't need to exhibit any actual sign of terror such as wielding weapon or be found near a crime scene or anythign like that. Just being black makes police likely to treat you as a higher threat. This is against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". One can argue whether using skin color as part of threat assement is legimate or that it doesn't happen. But most of the time it seems its seen as illegimate and it does happen.

Well, of course.

In fact, one may treat this as a circular argument: "they were in the wrong" == "they ultimately lost" X-)

I think it's great that you focused on Byzantians and Alpagoans. On the other hand I get the feeling that the story is unneccarily complex for the point you want to make.

Considering the responses I observe, I'm going to say - well done. You've made people deeply uncomfortable without giving them a specific reason to be uncomfortable. Granted, in typical Less Wrongian fashion, they'd rather criticize you than take an opportunity to observe their own minds.

Other readers: If you're trying hard to figure out which side you should take based on the real-world analogue you think this could be representing... well, you're mind-killed. Take this as a learning opportunity in how to be less mind-killed. The correct stance is not the stance you already hold, and by trying to find a real-world analogue, you're admitting that your view is being informed, not by rationality, but by tribal politics.