you are choosing personal gain … over communally beneficial norms. … And you’re not “lil’ ol’ me” when you’re in top 5 of commentors month in and month out.
By the same token, doesn’t being in the top 5 of commentators regularly suggest that a person is not really too far outside of community norms?
IMO there is a difference between trolling and blunt but rational commentary, and the example you linked to above (involving kulaks and the like) is blunt but rational commentary (and frankly, it was not excessively blunt); there is a good case to be made for emotional human empathy acting as a check on utilitarianism running awry. The 20th century provides several examples of utopian projects ending badly, and it seems to me useful to ask if removing emotional empathy from the moral calculation is a good idea.
If I am then discouraged from posting new stuff, will you say that it’s entirely my fault for being too sensitive and not ignoring you?
IMO, that is a false dichotomy - (being discouraged from posting new stuff vs. ignoring disagreeing posts). A third option is to read the disagreeing post, think about it, respond to it if you deem doing so worthwhile, and move on, while recognizing that divergent viewpoints exist.
My fear is that if comments like Lumifer’s Kulak comment are discouraged for fear of discouraging future postings, LW is at risk of becoming an echo chamber.
As you’ve noticed in that thread, I didn’t cry that Lumifer offended me. I replied to his comment and we ended up having a semi-productive discussion on empathy, coercion and unintended consequences. If bringing that specific example up reads as concern trolling on my part, I apologize.
I wanted to make a more general point: I do recognize that there’s a trade off to be made between criticism and niceness, both of which are needed for a good discussion. I’m also OK if you think LW is too nice and the comments should be harsher. The directness of criticism is one of my favorite things about LW, along with overall commitment to free speech. But I also care about practical outcomes on discussion quality, not abstract ideology.
I think that there’s an important distinction between the following two positions:
“I made a blunt comment because I judged that criticism is more important than niceness in this specific case.”
“I made a blunt comment and niceness is not my concern at all, because other people are free to ignore me.”
I think that an environment where people hold #1 produces better discussion. And unless I’m corrected, it seems like Lumifer espouses #2.
As you’ve noticed in that thread, I didn’t cry that Lumifer offended me. I replied to his comment and we ended up having a semi-productive discussion on empathy, coercion and unintended consequences.
Yes I did notice. That is why that particular exchange was a great example of how one need neither ignore nor be discouraged by a comment like Lumifer’s kulak comment; instead, allow the comment to engender a useful dialog.
I’m also OK if you think LW is too nice and the comments should be harsher.
No, I don’t think that. I really like the quality of the comments on LW, that is why I come here. However, I think that Lumifer’s comments are within the range of LW community norms. One thing I like about LW is that there exists a diversity of commenting styles just as it has a diversity of viewpoints on various subjects. An example of another high-karma commentator with a style (and opinions) that are quite different from Lumifer’s is gjm. IMO both commentators make thoughtful, valuable contributions to LW, albeit their styles are quite different; I think that LW benefits from both commentators’ styles and opinions, and the distinct styles and opinions of many others as well. Note that I am in favor of community norms, but I feel that Lumifer’s comments are within those norms.
I think that there’s an important distinction between the following two positions… And unless I’m corrected, it seems like Lumifer espouses #2
IMO, Lumifer is not in category 2. Using the kulak comment again as an illustrative example, it seems to me that the comment was in no way a personal attack on you or anyone else and was not what I would classify as “not nice”. It seems to me that the specific examples he chose did bring clarity to the discussion in a way that voicing an abstract objection or a less extreme example would not have. IMO Stalin’s dekulakization (which is I suppose what Lumifer was referring to) really is the sort of thing that can happen more easily when an idealized (albeit flawed) utilitarian goal is pursued in the absence of emotional empathy. In short, I suspect that the examples were selected because they effectively made the point that Lumifer intended to make rather than because Lumifer was trying to offend or troll.
By the same token, doesn’t being in the top 5 of commentators regularly suggest that a person is not really too far outside of community norms?
IMO there is a difference between trolling and blunt but rational commentary, and the example you linked to above (involving kulaks and the like) is blunt but rational commentary (and frankly, it was not excessively blunt); there is a good case to be made for emotional human empathy acting as a check on utilitarianism running awry. The 20th century provides several examples of utopian projects ending badly, and it seems to me useful to ask if removing emotional empathy from the moral calculation is a good idea.
IMO, that is a false dichotomy - (being discouraged from posting new stuff vs. ignoring disagreeing posts). A third option is to read the disagreeing post, think about it, respond to it if you deem doing so worthwhile, and move on, while recognizing that divergent viewpoints exist.
My fear is that if comments like Lumifer’s Kulak comment are discouraged for fear of discouraging future postings, LW is at risk of becoming an echo chamber.
As you’ve noticed in that thread, I didn’t cry that Lumifer offended me. I replied to his comment and we ended up having a semi-productive discussion on empathy, coercion and unintended consequences. If bringing that specific example up reads as concern trolling on my part, I apologize.
I wanted to make a more general point: I do recognize that there’s a trade off to be made between criticism and niceness, both of which are needed for a good discussion. I’m also OK if you think LW is too nice and the comments should be harsher. The directness of criticism is one of my favorite things about LW, along with overall commitment to free speech. But I also care about practical outcomes on discussion quality, not abstract ideology.
I think that there’s an important distinction between the following two positions:
“I made a blunt comment because I judged that criticism is more important than niceness in this specific case.”
“I made a blunt comment and niceness is not my concern at all, because other people are free to ignore me.”
I think that an environment where people hold #1 produces better discussion. And unless I’m corrected, it seems like Lumifer espouses #2.
Yes I did notice. That is why that particular exchange was a great example of how one need neither ignore nor be discouraged by a comment like Lumifer’s kulak comment; instead, allow the comment to engender a useful dialog.
No, I don’t think that. I really like the quality of the comments on LW, that is why I come here. However, I think that Lumifer’s comments are within the range of LW community norms. One thing I like about LW is that there exists a diversity of commenting styles just as it has a diversity of viewpoints on various subjects. An example of another high-karma commentator with a style (and opinions) that are quite different from Lumifer’s is gjm. IMO both commentators make thoughtful, valuable contributions to LW, albeit their styles are quite different; I think that LW benefits from both commentators’ styles and opinions, and the distinct styles and opinions of many others as well. Note that I am in favor of community norms, but I feel that Lumifer’s comments are within those norms.
IMO, Lumifer is not in category 2. Using the kulak comment again as an illustrative example, it seems to me that the comment was in no way a personal attack on you or anyone else and was not what I would classify as “not nice”. It seems to me that the specific examples he chose did bring clarity to the discussion in a way that voicing an abstract objection or a less extreme example would not have. IMO Stalin’s dekulakization (which is I suppose what Lumifer was referring to) really is the sort of thing that can happen more easily when an idealized (albeit flawed) utilitarian goal is pursued in the absence of emotional empathy. In short, I suspect that the examples were selected because they effectively made the point that Lumifer intended to make rather than because Lumifer was trying to offend or troll.