This also seems like an excessively hostile way of disagreeing! I think there’s some illusion of transparency going on.
I think
Sorry, I think you’ve misunderstood me. I don’t want to see bullshit on lesswrong. [Elaboation] The things Eliezer plans to censor consistently encourage people to speak bullshit. Therefore, I support the censorship.
This also seems like an excessively hostile way of disagreeing!
It is unfortunate that the one word on your comment that you gave emphasis to is the one word that invalidates it (rather than being a mere subjective disagreement). Since I have already been quite clear that I consider fubarobfusco’s comment to be both epistemically flawed and an unacceptable violation of lesswrong’s (or at very least my) ideals you ought to be able to predict that this would make me dismiss you as merely supporting toxic behavior. It means that the full weight of the grandparent comment applies to you, with additional emphasis given that you are persisting despite the redundant explanation.
Sorry
Wedrifid writing ‘Sorry’ in response to fubarobfusco’s behavior—or anything else involving untenable misrepresentations of the words of another—would have been disingenuous. Moreover anyone who is remotely familiar with wedrifid would interpret him making that particular political move in that context as passive-aggressive dissembling… and would have been entirely correct in doing so.
Part of my point was that your words are not nearly as clear as you think they are. Merely telling people your words are clear doesn’t make people understand them.
I probably won’t respond further because this conversation quickly became frustrating for me.
This also seems like an excessively hostile way of disagreeing! I think there’s some illusion of transparency going on.
I think
Might have worked better
It is unfortunate that the one word on your comment that you gave emphasis to is the one word that invalidates it (rather than being a mere subjective disagreement). Since I have already been quite clear that I consider fubarobfusco’s comment to be both epistemically flawed and an unacceptable violation of lesswrong’s (or at very least my) ideals you ought to be able to predict that this would make me dismiss you as merely supporting toxic behavior. It means that the full weight of the grandparent comment applies to you, with additional emphasis given that you are persisting despite the redundant explanation.
Wedrifid writing ‘Sorry’ in response to fubarobfusco’s behavior—or anything else involving untenable misrepresentations of the words of another—would have been disingenuous. Moreover anyone who is remotely familiar with wedrifid would interpret him making that particular political move in that context as passive-aggressive dissembling… and would have been entirely correct in doing so.
Part of my point was that your words are not nearly as clear as you think they are. Merely telling people your words are clear doesn’t make people understand them.
I probably won’t respond further because this conversation quickly became frustrating for me.