I don’t mind this whole “the more you talk, the worse you look” thing, because a) it’s symmetrical, and b) I’m entirely comfortable being seen for having exactly the preferences and principles I do have.
I’ve responded sharply, at this point, to exactly four people: a universally acknowledged troll, two people who started out clearly strawmanning me and being heavily anchored on negative opinions without justification, and now you, as you abandon standards in pursuit of scoring points.
I have not willfully misrepresented people, or immediately leapt to unfounded conclusions about their deep character, or engaged in cheap-trick point-scoring tactics against people who didn’t shoot first (with one exception that Alicorn called me out on, and I edited), or any of the other behaviors that I don’t reflectively endorse. I have certainly pulled none of the subpar junk that you’ve pulled in this subthread, and I’m proud to have opposed you as you’ve done it.
As I’ve noted elsewhere—I don’t much care about irrelevant opinions, and as people have demonstrated themselves to be below the bar of what I expect from a LWer and a rationalist, I correspondingly cease to mind what their overall judgment of me is. I generally try to judge how likely a person’s opinion is to closely correlate with truth and useful perspective, and while I hold my disregard with skepticism on the meta level, so as to not unfairly write people off, ultimately evidence is evidence. There are some people who simply demonstrate, fairly conclusively, that they aren’t going to play fair, think straight, update on evidence, etc., and are literally not worth listening to, in a VOI sense (though they may still be worth opposing in public).
I state again that something like 97% of the participants in this thread do seem like their opinions are likely to closely correlate with truth and provide useful perspective, and I’m grateful for the hours that total strangers have poured into helping me dodge mistakes. This project is something like 50% less likely to fail and 30% more likely to be really successful (relative to where it was a week ago) thanks to those contributions.
And sure—probably most of the neutral parties are shaking their heads somewhat—thinking things like “Duncan’s being too aggressive here” or “Duncan’s fighting fights not worth fighting” or “I wish he hadn’t posted X.” But that’s coin I’m spending deliberately, in open defense of things I think are worth defending. There’s no point in social capital if all you do is hoard it—at some point, people who’ve accrued ought to take risks holding lines that others can’t afford to defend. If I lose 5% of the respect that I’ve gained, but also meaningfully embolden others who were too hesitant to defend themselves against bullies by giving them the sense they’re not the only ones bothered by poor discourse, that’s a purchase I endorse. Freedom from trolls isn’t free—turns out even Lumifer will occasionally use Trump-style tactics, if they dislike you enough.
LOL. You smell SJW-ish. A white knight selflessly spending his social capital to defend the weak against the bullies. Against “Trump-style tactics” even! And, of course, you will not be denied for your cause is just.
You are clearly incapable of shutting up so this will be amusing.
So tell me more about things you think are worth defending—especially from the likes of me. Are we still talking about the mere forms of expression which you disapprove of or there’s some deeper ideology involved? Do you see me as lacking honor, or empathy, or proper morals, or the desire to remake the world, or something else?
I note for others reading this comment and wondering why it hasn’t been addressed that I’ve at least temporarily ceased replying to Lumifer and a couple of other posters on a policy level, for reasons surrounding norms of discourse, strawmanning, epistemic humility, presence or absence of good faith, etc. It’s possible that the above contains good questions or insights; if someone else chooses to repost/re-ask/rephrase sections of this, I’ll likely respond to them.
I note for others reading this comment and wondering why it hasn’t been addressed that I’ve at least temporarily ceased replying to Lumifer and a couple of other posters on a policy level, for reasons surrounding norms of discourse, strawmanning, epistemic humility, presence or absence of good faith, etc. It’s possible that the above contains good questions or insights; if someone else chooses to repost/re-ask/rephrase sections of this, I’ll likely respond to them.
It’s been a while since the last time I was officially added to the list of the Enemies of the People and… ritually cast out, I guess? This time there even a list of high crimes I’m guilty of—“reasons surrounding norms”. Woe is me!
I don’t mind this whole “the more you talk, the worse you look” thing, because a) it’s symmetrical, and b) I’m entirely comfortable being seen for having exactly the preferences and principles I do have.
I’ve responded sharply, at this point, to exactly four people: a universally acknowledged troll, two people who started out clearly strawmanning me and being heavily anchored on negative opinions without justification, and now you, as you abandon standards in pursuit of scoring points.
I have not willfully misrepresented people, or immediately leapt to unfounded conclusions about their deep character, or engaged in cheap-trick point-scoring tactics against people who didn’t shoot first (with one exception that Alicorn called me out on, and I edited), or any of the other behaviors that I don’t reflectively endorse. I have certainly pulled none of the subpar junk that you’ve pulled in this subthread, and I’m proud to have opposed you as you’ve done it.
As I’ve noted elsewhere—I don’t much care about irrelevant opinions, and as people have demonstrated themselves to be below the bar of what I expect from a LWer and a rationalist, I correspondingly cease to mind what their overall judgment of me is. I generally try to judge how likely a person’s opinion is to closely correlate with truth and useful perspective, and while I hold my disregard with skepticism on the meta level, so as to not unfairly write people off, ultimately evidence is evidence. There are some people who simply demonstrate, fairly conclusively, that they aren’t going to play fair, think straight, update on evidence, etc., and are literally not worth listening to, in a VOI sense (though they may still be worth opposing in public).
I state again that something like 97% of the participants in this thread do seem like their opinions are likely to closely correlate with truth and provide useful perspective, and I’m grateful for the hours that total strangers have poured into helping me dodge mistakes. This project is something like 50% less likely to fail and 30% more likely to be really successful (relative to where it was a week ago) thanks to those contributions.
And sure—probably most of the neutral parties are shaking their heads somewhat—thinking things like “Duncan’s being too aggressive here” or “Duncan’s fighting fights not worth fighting” or “I wish he hadn’t posted X.” But that’s coin I’m spending deliberately, in open defense of things I think are worth defending. There’s no point in social capital if all you do is hoard it—at some point, people who’ve accrued ought to take risks holding lines that others can’t afford to defend. If I lose 5% of the respect that I’ve gained, but also meaningfully embolden others who were too hesitant to defend themselves against bullies by giving them the sense they’re not the only ones bothered by poor discourse, that’s a purchase I endorse. Freedom from trolls isn’t free—turns out even Lumifer will occasionally use Trump-style tactics, if they dislike you enough.
LOL. You smell SJW-ish. A white knight selflessly spending his social capital to defend the weak against the bullies. Against “Trump-style tactics” even! And, of course, you will not be denied for your cause is just.
You are clearly incapable of shutting up so this will be amusing.
So tell me more about things you think are worth defending—especially from the likes of me. Are we still talking about the mere forms of expression which you disapprove of or there’s some deeper ideology involved? Do you see me as lacking honor, or empathy, or proper morals, or the desire to remake the world, or something else?
I note for others reading this comment and wondering why it hasn’t been addressed that I’ve at least temporarily ceased replying to Lumifer and a couple of other posters on a policy level, for reasons surrounding norms of discourse, strawmanning, epistemic humility, presence or absence of good faith, etc. It’s possible that the above contains good questions or insights; if someone else chooses to repost/re-ask/rephrase sections of this, I’ll likely respond to them.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/
Oh, good! So I can point out things to you and you won’t be able to talk back? :-D
I note for others reading this comment and wondering why it hasn’t been addressed that I’ve at least temporarily ceased replying to Lumifer and a couple of other posters on a policy level, for reasons surrounding norms of discourse, strawmanning, epistemic humility, presence or absence of good faith, etc. It’s possible that the above contains good questions or insights; if someone else chooses to repost/re-ask/rephrase sections of this, I’ll likely respond to them.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/
Once more, please :-)
It’s been a while since the last time I was officially added to the list of the Enemies of the People and… ritually cast out, I guess? This time there even a list of high crimes I’m guilty of—“reasons surrounding norms”. Woe is me!