I don’t think that if you don’t believe the first speaker to be well-intentioned, you should pretend like they are. But even in that case, there are better forward moves than “Bullshit,” especially on LW.
(For instance, you could go the route of “if [cared], would [do X, Y, Z]. Since ¬Z, can make a marginal update against [cared].”)
Somehow this reminds me of a recent interaction between ESRogs and Zack_M_Davis, where I saw ESRogs as pushing against slurs in general, which I further inferred to be part of pushing against hostility in general. But if the goal actually is hostility, a slur is the way to go about it (with the two comments generated, in part, by the ambiguity of ‘inappropriate’).
Somehow the framing of “updated against [cared]” seems to be playing into this? Like, one thing you might be tracking is whether [cared] is high or low, and another thing you might be tracking is whether [enemy] is high or low (noting that [enemy] is distinct from [¬cared]!). In cases where there are many moves associated with cooperativity and fewer associated with being adversarial, it can be much easier to talk about [enemy] than [cared].
I ended up jumping in to bridge the inferential gap in that exact exchange. =P
I think it’s fine to discover/decide that your [enemy] rating should go up, and I still don’t think that means “abandon the principles.” (EDIT: to be clear, I don’t think you were advocating for that.) It might mean abandon some of the disarmaments that are only valid for other peace-treaty signatories, but I don’t think there are enmities on LW in which it’s a good idea to go full Dark Arts, and I think it would be good if the mass of users downvoted even Eliezer if he were doing so in the heat of the moment.
Somehow this reminds me of a recent interaction between ESRogs and Zack_M_Davis, where I saw ESRogs as pushing against slurs in general, which I further inferred to be part of pushing against hostility in general. But if the goal actually is hostility, a slur is the way to go about it (with the two comments generated, in part, by the ambiguity of ‘inappropriate’).
Somehow the framing of “updated against [cared]” seems to be playing into this? Like, one thing you might be tracking is whether [cared] is high or low, and another thing you might be tracking is whether [enemy] is high or low (noting that [enemy] is distinct from [¬cared]!). In cases where there are many moves associated with cooperativity and fewer associated with being adversarial, it can be much easier to talk about [enemy] than [cared].
I ended up jumping in to bridge the inferential gap in that exact exchange. =P
I think it’s fine to discover/decide that your [enemy] rating should go up, and I still don’t think that means “abandon the principles.” (EDIT: to be clear, I don’t think you were advocating for that.) It might mean abandon some of the disarmaments that are only valid for other peace-treaty signatories, but I don’t think there are enmities on LW in which it’s a good idea to go full Dark Arts, and I think it would be good if the mass of users downvoted even Eliezer if he were doing so in the heat of the moment.
what you refer to as Dark Arts here? do you consider slurs Dark Art? the word Bulshit?