There are sometimes controversial discussions here, and I wonder how these conversations play out at meetups. Do you ever get an anarchist, a communist and a neoreactionary turning up to the same meeting? If so, does it cause problems? Or, indeed, do discussions about dust specks/torture or other controversial but apolitical topics ever get heated?
LW seems far more cool-headed than the rest of the world, and I am wondering to what extent it might be partially due to being online.
Personally, I have only gone to a few meetups, but I think I have managed to offend people :(
I’m trying to think of what funny thing they could do. The anarchist could walk away from the bar without paying for the drink, because they do not believe in the landlord/drinker power structure. The communist could demand that the most well-off member of the group pays for drinks.
Or which drinks:
The neoreactionary could insist that it may not be politically correct, but some drinks are objectively better than others. The communist could say that all drinks are equally good, and so insist that all drinks are mixed into one glass. The anarchist… I feel the anarchist has to smash something. Is there a drink that sounds like ‘system’ or ‘capitalism’?
One of my freshmen year roommates was a communist. He thought everybody should just share their food that was in the community fridge. He bought a mini-fridge for his food.
Do you ever get an anarchist, a communist and a neoreactionary turning up to the same meeting? If so, does it cause problems?
I’ve been part of some arguments between libertarians and socialists. They got moderately heated but not severely so. Rationality-wise they seemed better than I’ve experienced in other communities, but still pretty far from a cool-headed ideal. To be fair I’ve also had some somewhat heated arguments over more abstract philosophical issues, though with few hard feelings.
A large portion of my coworkers (due to the nature of the job, they’re probably in that weird space between family, friend, and acquaintance) fiercely endorse beliefs that I am at odds with (against gay marriage, strong religiosity, complete climate change denial, etc) but we can discuss our beliefs (for the most part; one of them insisted he would have his daughter flogged if she ‘turned gay’, and then kidnapped and sent to some less accepting society to ‘chase it out of her’) without any heated arguments. Even if we do, we still have no problems buying each other lunch the next day.
This is a wholly personal experience, since I’m used to holding contrarian views. I think it still bothers my System 1, but not enough for me to devote System 2 time to it.
What about the world at large, though?
Would an online interaction promote calm discussion, or in-person interaction?
While that dichotomy might differ in the LessWrong community due to cultural factors, I think it’s safe to say that people think the opposite is usually true for most internet interactions.
A few possibilities come to mind, in regards to possible trends. I realize that it’s a mixture. Help me out if I’ve missed something.
A) People are more belligerent online, less belligerent in person.
B) People are less belligerent online, more belligerent in person.
C) People are the same online and in the real world.
D) Online vs. real world belligerence determined strongly by culture.
Public opinion seems to favor A.
I’m having trouble finding relevant studies, because I’m not sure if data collected from the context of online sexual/nonsexual harassment is useful, here.
There are sometimes controversial discussions here, and I wonder how these conversations play out at meetups. Do you ever get an anarchist, a communist and a neoreactionary turning up to the same meeting? If so, does it cause problems? Or, indeed, do discussions about dust specks/torture or other controversial but apolitical topics ever get heated?
LW seems far more cool-headed than the rest of the world, and I am wondering to what extent it might be partially due to being online.
Personally, I have only gone to a few meetups, but I think I have managed to offend people :(
So an anarchist, a communist, and a neoreactionary walk into a LessWrong meetup...
I’m trying to think of what funny thing they could do. The anarchist could walk away from the bar without paying for the drink, because they do not believe in the landlord/drinker power structure. The communist could demand that the most well-off member of the group pays for drinks.
Or which drinks:
The neoreactionary could insist that it may not be politically correct, but some drinks are objectively better than others. The communist could say that all drinks are equally good, and so insist that all drinks are mixed into one glass. The anarchist… I feel the anarchist has to smash something. Is there a drink that sounds like ‘system’ or ‘capitalism’?
One of my freshmen year roommates was a communist. He thought everybody should just share their food that was in the community fridge. He bought a mini-fridge for his food.
Cap-it-all-ism?
I’ve been part of some arguments between libertarians and socialists. They got moderately heated but not severely so. Rationality-wise they seemed better than I’ve experienced in other communities, but still pretty far from a cool-headed ideal. To be fair I’ve also had some somewhat heated arguments over more abstract philosophical issues, though with few hard feelings.
A large portion of my coworkers (due to the nature of the job, they’re probably in that weird space between family, friend, and acquaintance) fiercely endorse beliefs that I am at odds with (against gay marriage, strong religiosity, complete climate change denial, etc) but we can discuss our beliefs (for the most part; one of them insisted he would have his daughter flogged if she ‘turned gay’, and then kidnapped and sent to some less accepting society to ‘chase it out of her’) without any heated arguments. Even if we do, we still have no problems buying each other lunch the next day.
This is a wholly personal experience, since I’m used to holding contrarian views. I think it still bothers my System 1, but not enough for me to devote System 2 time to it.
What about the world at large, though?
Would an online interaction promote calm discussion, or in-person interaction?
While that dichotomy might differ in the LessWrong community due to cultural factors, I think it’s safe to say that people think the opposite is usually true for most internet interactions.
A few possibilities come to mind, in regards to possible trends. I realize that it’s a mixture. Help me out if I’ve missed something.
A) People are more belligerent online, less belligerent in person.
B) People are less belligerent online, more belligerent in person.
C) People are the same online and in the real world.
D) Online vs. real world belligerence determined strongly by culture.
Public opinion seems to favor A.
I’m having trouble finding relevant studies, because I’m not sure if data collected from the context of online sexual/nonsexual harassment is useful, here.
Among those I have only seen an anarchist at our meetups in Berlin.
In person I notice more empathy than online but have never witnessed any heated problematic conversations.