If you believe that killing a fetus is murder, then a woman seeking an abortion pays a doctor to commit murder. Why shouldn’t she be convicted of that?
I am not convinced that this post needed to introduce the added complications of legality. It adds another plane of variables under dispute and is not too illuminating.
You did your best to maximally frame all problems as being on the reader’s end during your exchange with Alicorn, during which you did not admit to making any contribution to misunderstanding. You evaded all criticisms about tone by disparaging them as unimportant, and despite the short length of your first exchange about the post (cut short by the person you annoyed) you managed to squeak in “I already responded to this in my last comment.”
Now that we have moved beyond the first person’s criticism, you can begin avoiding blame by redirecting it in earnest; if the post was misinterpreted by the reader (with no help from the author), those mistakes have already been corrected, in what amounts to the distant past, please see previous discussion. And the author and critic are on equal footing as erring beings, the author for having once made a mistake, (long since corrected), and the reader for not noticing the correction of the mistake.
Saying “This problem has already been encountered” and linking to another criticism of your post in which the legal angle in general is not named as a problem is an extravagant way to avoid admitting you contributed to a problem. The legal issue didn’t have to be squarely addressed there for you to resort to passing off error like a hot potato. (Not “I see the problem”, not “I encountered the problem”, “the problem has been encountered”, in the passive voice and the past perfect.)
And superfluously saying kind and social things like “thanks for the feedback” hones the passive-aggressiveness you wield and does not simply act as a pile of merits to weigh against your sins.
I’m sorry I’ve totally neglected your recent universal requests for positive feedback. I’m not really good with those or these things. I don’t get along with Alicorn because I’m boorish. You seem to not get along with her because of a particular synergy—your defensiveness and self justifications trigger her sensitivities to being attacked and taking offense, which trigger your defensiveness...maybe you can tell me how to fix my problems, though it seems hard to correct for not knowing what to say and when. But your problem with her is a feedback cycle in which you are a participant, so cut it out and that will be the end of it!
There has to be a better way to handle perfectionism. You could have expanding circles of people to whom you submit stages of rough drafts, not everything has to emerge perfect and ready to be maximally defended. I don’t know.
Good luck to us all. I hope you get lots of positive feedback soon, you deserve it.
P.S. Do not thank me for this feedback.
1) If you do, it will be passive aggressive.
2) If you do, people will simply upvote this comment.
I think there’s something important to say here… Like, maybe a list of bad things that happen when you start thinking of persons as the primary bearers of justification, rather than beliefs or actions. You seem way too focused on whether or not Luke as a person is justified… like, if you could think things through from first principles, this wouldn’t be how you would approach problems like this… bleh. Sorry, that’s really enigmatic, but it’s important to mention.
I’m not sure if this means “I have something to say to you, it is the following:” or “I think you said some things that were good to say, (and by implication, you said some things that were not good to say,) and I will now paraphrase the good part of what you said as I would have said it:”
like, if you could think things through from first principles, this wouldn’t be how you would approach problems like this
Same issue as above, I can’t tell if you are trying to say something to me (and if so, what) or if you are offering an alternative to have said instead of what I did say.
My ‘thanks for your feedback’ to jsalvatier was not passive-aggressive but genuine. John’s feedback genuinely helped change my approach on Less Wrong, and made me more aware of how I am appearing to others. Plausibly, he got through to me because I spent a week with John in person and have a lot of respect for him.
I am not convinced that this post needed to introduce the added complications of legality. It adds another plane of variables under dispute and is not too illuminating.
Agreed. This problem has already been encountered and I have updated my wording in the original post in response.
You did your best to maximally frame all problems as being on the reader’s end during your exchange with Alicorn, during which you did not admit to making any contribution to misunderstanding. You evaded all criticisms about tone by disparaging them as unimportant, and despite the short length of your first exchange about the post (cut short by the person you annoyed) you managed to squeak in “I already responded to this in my last comment.”
Now that we have moved beyond the first person’s criticism, you can begin avoiding blame by redirecting it in earnest; if the post was misinterpreted by the reader (with no help from the author), those mistakes have already been corrected, in what amounts to the distant past, please see previous discussion. And the author and critic are on equal footing as erring beings, the author for having once made a mistake, (long since corrected), and the reader for not noticing the correction of the mistake.
Saying “This problem has already been encountered” and linking to another criticism of your post in which the legal angle in general is not named as a problem is an extravagant way to avoid admitting you contributed to a problem. The legal issue didn’t have to be squarely addressed there for you to resort to passing off error like a hot potato. (Not “I see the problem”, not “I encountered the problem”, “the problem has been encountered”, in the passive voice and the past perfect.)
And superfluously saying kind and social things like “thanks for the feedback” hones the passive-aggressiveness you wield and does not simply act as a pile of merits to weigh against your sins.
I’m sorry I’ve totally neglected your recent universal requests for positive feedback. I’m not really good with those or these things. I don’t get along with Alicorn because I’m boorish. You seem to not get along with her because of a particular synergy—your defensiveness and self justifications trigger her sensitivities to being attacked and taking offense, which trigger your defensiveness...maybe you can tell me how to fix my problems, though it seems hard to correct for not knowing what to say and when. But your problem with her is a feedback cycle in which you are a participant, so cut it out and that will be the end of it!
There has to be a better way to handle perfectionism. You could have expanding circles of people to whom you submit stages of rough drafts, not everything has to emerge perfect and ready to be maximally defended. I don’t know.
Good luck to us all. I hope you get lots of positive feedback soon, you deserve it.
P.S. Do not thank me for this feedback. 1) If you do, it will be passive aggressive. 2) If you do, people will simply upvote this comment.
I think there’s something important to say here… Like, maybe a list of bad things that happen when you start thinking of persons as the primary bearers of justification, rather than beliefs or actions. You seem way too focused on whether or not Luke as a person is justified… like, if you could think things through from first principles, this wouldn’t be how you would approach problems like this… bleh. Sorry, that’s really enigmatic, but it’s important to mention.
I’m not sure if this means “I have something to say to you, it is the following:” or “I think you said some things that were good to say, (and by implication, you said some things that were not good to say,) and I will now paraphrase the good part of what you said as I would have said it:”
Same issue as above, I can’t tell if you are trying to say something to me (and if so, what) or if you are offering an alternative to have said instead of what I did say.
My ‘thanks for your feedback’ to jsalvatier was not passive-aggressive but genuine. John’s feedback genuinely helped change my approach on Less Wrong, and made me more aware of how I am appearing to others. Plausibly, he got through to me because I spent a week with John in person and have a lot of respect for him.
That’s good.