Strong support for this person’s willingness to contribute the opposite opinion.
Strong support for this person’s willingness to take the time to write things up in detail.
Strong appreciation for the trust implicit in this being posted here (i.e. it’s a compliment along the lines of “I expect not to be punished for speaking the truth as I see it.”)
Some regret/sadness that they’re this triggered and vitriolic, and for the tendency toward choosing the worst or straw-est interpretation at every point rather than taking the time to question their own responses and include nuance, but on the other hand, still appreciation for how this contributes to the overall health of the discussion by opening up new threads for debate and ensuring that there isn’t an echo chamber (i.e. maybe it takes that level of aggression to accomplish the thing, and a gentler critique wouldn’t be taken seriously enough?).
Significant disagreement with the choice to hijack the topic at hand to vent about things that are either mostly or completely unrelated, and make claims that are unsubstantiated or wildly inaccurate, and engage in some specious logic toward the end (e.g. ad hominem fallacy).
Hope to have some time later today to respond to the better points this raises.
The fact that you think it’s “ad hominem” is itself a betrayal of your own inexperience and lack of perception. It’s perhaps one of the most relevant and least fallacious arguments to make: your fiction is a direct expression of your aesthetics, and the inference I draw from your fiction is that you do not have good aesthetics, and therefore should not be trying, or even pretending, to do something that by nature requires very good aesthetic sense.
It also indicates a tremendous amount of immaturity and childishness. I could have written something better in high school. That’s not a good sign. Your ability to write characters and dialogue is directly tied to your ability to model the world accurately and understand the nuances of human behavior. Ergo, clichéd and trite writing is very damning.
Many words. Probably took a while to write. Some unnecessary things like telling the writer to kill themselves and levelling inherent criticism like attributes of other writing. Other writing is pretty irrelevant to the qualities of this piece. You may have some points in this dung heap but you make it hard to find them. Is it even worth engaging you in conversation?
Oh, I see. You’re what the Eternal September phenomenon is all about. You shouldn’t feel ashamed that you aren’t cognitively gifted enough to quickly and rapidly comprehend the salient points I made without substantial expenditure of mental effort, because you were born this way, which also accounts for your overestimation of the amount of time it took for me to write my comments. But please don’t pollute the comment space under my comments with your puerile excretions.
Perhaps your excessive cognition is ironically blinding you to the grandiose mediocrity of your overwrought replies, such as this one here, which sounds like something I would have written in third grade if I wasn’t already too smart to have written it then, which, as a truly capable mind might have already conceived, I was.
Your original comment, though harsh, at least contained some useful insights. Don’t ruin that by posting comments that are nothing more than 6 lines of insults that no one wants to read.
Most of the arguments you set forth are more fallacious and less relevant than not liking all the author’s fiction.
But that’s because most of the arguments you set forth were of the type “Bay Area rationalists have had a lot of problems and therefore this specific plan will have similar problems.”
Oh, I see. This is the part where you’re too attached to your ingroup to realize what a total failure the Berkeley rationalist community is. I bet you also think the Sequences and HPMOR are well-written.
Strong support for this person’s willingness to contribute the opposite opinion.
Strong support for this person’s willingness to take the time to write things up in detail.
Strong appreciation for the trust implicit in this being posted here (i.e. it’s a compliment along the lines of “I expect not to be punished for speaking the truth as I see it.”)
Some regret/sadness that they’re this triggered and vitriolic, and for the tendency toward choosing the worst or straw-est interpretation at every point rather than taking the time to question their own responses and include nuance, but on the other hand, still appreciation for how this contributes to the overall health of the discussion by opening up new threads for debate and ensuring that there isn’t an echo chamber (i.e. maybe it takes that level of aggression to accomplish the thing, and a gentler critique wouldn’t be taken seriously enough?).
Significant disagreement with the choice to hijack the topic at hand to vent about things that are either mostly or completely unrelated, and make claims that are unsubstantiated or wildly inaccurate, and engage in some specious logic toward the end (e.g. ad hominem fallacy).
Hope to have some time later today to respond to the better points this raises.
Thanks for your contribution.
The fact that you think it’s “ad hominem” is itself a betrayal of your own inexperience and lack of perception. It’s perhaps one of the most relevant and least fallacious arguments to make: your fiction is a direct expression of your aesthetics, and the inference I draw from your fiction is that you do not have good aesthetics, and therefore should not be trying, or even pretending, to do something that by nature requires very good aesthetic sense.
It also indicates a tremendous amount of immaturity and childishness. I could have written something better in high school. That’s not a good sign. Your ability to write characters and dialogue is directly tied to your ability to model the world accurately and understand the nuances of human behavior. Ergo, clichéd and trite writing is very damning.
Many words. Probably took a while to write. Some unnecessary things like telling the writer to kill themselves and levelling inherent criticism like attributes of other writing. Other writing is pretty irrelevant to the qualities of this piece. You may have some points in this dung heap but you make it hard to find them. Is it even worth engaging you in conversation?
Oh, I see. You’re what the Eternal September phenomenon is all about. You shouldn’t feel ashamed that you aren’t cognitively gifted enough to quickly and rapidly comprehend the salient points I made without substantial expenditure of mental effort, because you were born this way, which also accounts for your overestimation of the amount of time it took for me to write my comments. But please don’t pollute the comment space under my comments with your puerile excretions.
Perhaps your excessive cognition is ironically blinding you to the grandiose mediocrity of your overwrought replies, such as this one here, which sounds like something I would have written in third grade if I wasn’t already too smart to have written it then, which, as a truly capable mind might have already conceived, I was.
Your original comment, though harsh, at least contained some useful insights. Don’t ruin that by posting comments that are nothing more than 6 lines of insults that no one wants to read.
Part right.
Most of the arguments you set forth are more fallacious and less relevant than not liking all the author’s fiction.
But that’s because most of the arguments you set forth were of the type “Bay Area rationalists have had a lot of problems and therefore this specific plan will have similar problems.”
Oh, I see. This is the part where you’re too attached to your ingroup to realize what a total failure the Berkeley rationalist community is. I bet you also think the Sequences and HPMOR are well-written.