I think maybe the problem is that you seem to be classifying a highly specific concrete instance of a very broad abstract class as being equal to the abstract class itself (and thus: equal to all possible subordinate concrete classes).
>> how about we develop something similar for internet arguments, a term that is mutually agreed upon in advance, and when uttered by a participant it kicks off a well documented (and agreed upon) protocol where all participants downgrade System 1 thinking to zero and upgrade System 2 thinking to 11
> This used to be Godwin's law.
In this case, playing of the Godwin's Lawcard would invoke my recommended process, as opposed to playing of the Godwin's Lawcard being an instance of my recommended process.
> Except by the time that's triggered, your System 2 thinking dialed you to 11 almost always tells everyone it's time to leave that discussion.
Again, this claim would invoke my process, and would be accompanied by a reminder that it isn't actually possible to read minds or the future, it only seems like it is possible when running on System 1 heuristics.
But then, both my logic and intuition suggests to me that what's going on here is that you and I are talking past each other, and if we were to eliminate all of the numerous flaws in communication (for example: your usage of "the" trigger condition instead of "a" trigger condition[1]), we'd discover we don't actually disagree very much. But ain't no one got time for that, under current protocols.
[1] A common response to this style of complaint ("pedantry") is that one should simply assume [the correct intended] meaning - but again, this has a dependency on mind reading, which is a false premise (that seems true during realtime cognition).
>> how about we develop something similar for internet arguments, a term that is mutually agreed upon in advance, and when uttered by a participant it kicks off a well documented (and agreed upon) protocol where all participants downgrade System 1 thinking to zero and upgrade System 2 thinking to 11
> This used to be Godwin's law.
In this case, playing of the Godwin's Lawcard would invoke my recommended process, as opposed to playing of the Godwin's Lawcard being an instance of my recommended process.
> Except by the time that's triggered, your System 2 thinking dialed you to 11 almost always tells everyone it's time to leave that discussion.
Again, this claim would invoke my process, and would be accompanied by a reminder that it isn't actually possible to read minds or the future, it only seems like it is possible when running on System 1 heuristics.
But then, both my logic and intuition suggests to me that what's going on here is that you and I are talking past each other, and if we were to eliminate all of the numerous flaws in communication (for example: your usage of "the" trigger condition instead of "a" trigger condition[1]), we'd discover we don't actually disagree very much. But ain't no one got time for that, under current protocols.
[1] A common response to this style of complaint ("pedantry") is that one should simply assume [the correct intended] meaning - but again, this has a dependency on mind reading, which is a false premise (that seems true during realtime cognition).