And yet, as of this writing, that post has a score of −7, and it has received comments complaining that it is an ad.
You seem to be admitting that you are writing this post with full awareness of the context. That obviates any benefit of the doubt. It also makes the misrepresentation (or perhaps ‘spin’) in the earlier part of that paragraph qualify as disingenuous.
All I see here is a bunch of cheap “Yay altruism” applause, some moralizing and a demand that users ignore details and quality of an actual post because they have some kind of external status that you wish to affiliate with. I really wish lesswrong were not as susceptible to influences.
And, please, can we be nice to people who help us?
You are hindering us. More than that, you are drawing attention to one terrible (pseodo-)contribution and away from any actual contribution by this Todd fellow or about the 80k folks.
If you want to actually provide a useful benefit to a group you like then don’t try to shame us into supporting trash. Instead, write your own well researched post directly evaluating either 80k itself or one of the causes or activities that it engages with.
You are judging a post meant to gather questions, a survey, against the standard for presenting original research. We are talking about initial engagement, getting a sense of which questions we want answered.
If there was confusion about who 80K is, or about what sort of questions they are looking for, then it would be good to ask. What happened people dismissed it as an ad.
What this post seems to be doing is trying to place yourself outside that category.
That makes no sense.
I am part of no group that encourages copy and paste PR posts being dumped on lesswrong.
Oh no! They posted the same offer elsewhere on the internet! And you accuse me of moralizing. I am sick of your hypocracy. Learn to evaluate your own arguments as harshly as you evaluate those you disagree with.
All I see here is a bunch of cheap “Yay altruism” applause
So if I remind people that Less Wrong was founded with altruistic purposes, and that content that helps us be effectively altruistic is in fact on topic when people try to dismiss as ad spam, I am just using applause lights, according you.
And, please, can we be nice to people who help us?
You are hindering us. More than that, you are drawing attention to one terrible (pseodo-)contribution and away from any actual contribution by this Todd fellow or about the 80k folks.
This does not make sense as a response to the quote.
If you want to actually provide a useful benefit to a group you like then don’t try to shame us into supporting trash.
I disagree with this characterization of my post.
Instead, write your own well researched post directly evaluating either 80k itself or one of the causes or activities that it engages with.
Yeah, that would have been better. I did what I have time for. I have a lot of other things going on. And there was this huge disconnect between how Luke Muelhauser and Carl Shulman were interacting with 80K, as opposed to Less Wrong in general.
Wedrifid, I really don’t like getting into these exchanges with you. You seem to have more time for it, and it is an effort to distangle your clever arguments. You seem to think that you can deliberately mislead people and still be honest. And I find it painfully ironic when you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
So, I stand by my assertion that it is worth engaging with 80K by providing them with questions we would like them to answer, and if you don’t agree, you can just let those of us who want to be involved do so, without erroneous complaints about spam.
Wedrifid, I really don’t like getting into these exchanges with you.
I don’t recall having any significant exchanges with you—I don’t doubt that it could have happened.
It may be useful for you to consider that this exchange is yours. You took the podium at the forum (in the traditional sense) and made a speech denouncing your enemies, supporting your allies and advocating a certain ideas. Then many people (in this case myself among them) replied with their own denunciations, support or advocacy. A good rule of thumb is that when you tell a group of people not to do what they have chosen to do you will get some replies, unless for some reason you have the power to suppress dissent. You don’t have to reply to them. You don’t even have to read them—you are not the primary audience and nobody really expects to convince the original speaker that they are wrong. But the replies will (and should) be made nonetheless.
You seem to have more time for it
I sincerely wish I did. There is a lot going on in the dynamics of this situation that relates to and threatens virtues and ideals that I value and—at least on lesswrong where it is usually safe to do so—hold sacred. If I wanted to protect those ideals effectively I would of course have to go ahead and write my own post but for me writing eloquent posts takes a lot of time and initiative.
You seem to think that you can deliberately mislead people and still be honest.
That is one way to be sure I remember you. The misleading usage of out of context quotes. I tend to recall all those who use this particular interpersonal tactic, whether against myself or others. Call it a pet peeve. Sometimes I’ve even provided an iterating counter. In this case I completely endorse the comment you link to. It is a straightforward renunciation of inflationary use of terms.
So, I stand by my assertion that it is worth engaging with 80K by providing them with questions we would like them to answer
Nobody (that I have noticed) has said anything to the contrary. I stand by Eliezer’s exhortation:
There is a lot going on in the dynamics of this situation that relates to and threatens virtues and ideals that I value and—at least on lesswrong where it is usually safe to do so—hold sacred. If I wanted to protect those ideals effectively I would of course have to go ahead and write my own post but for me writing eloquent posts takes a lot of time and initiative.
I would like to better understand why you and others are reacting so strongly to both Todd’s post and JGWeissman’s. I think I may have said this before, but I really wish you’d write more posts relative to comments so you can explain your ideas more systematically.
The misleading usage of out of context quotes. I tend to recall all those who use this particular interpersonal tactic, whether against myself or others. Call it a pet peeve.
Have you considered that they may not be deliberately quoting you misleadingly, but genuinely misunderstood your comments? In other words communicating is hard (inferential distance, etc) and it may be partly your fault that you’re being misleadingly quoted so often? I think I’ve very rarely if ever been misleadingly quoted out of context, and attribute that at least in part to wording my comments and posts very carefully and often providing caveats against possible misunderstandings.
All I see here is a bunch of cheap “Yay altruism” applause, some moralizing and a demand that users ignore details and quality of an actual post because they have some kind of external status that you wish to affiliate with.
The overwhelming majority of LW users appear to agree that the post was in fact useful and high quality. You would probably be more persuasive if, in this argument over whether the post was in fact valuable, you provided arguments. As is, you are asserting that it was terrible and then acting like jgweissman’s differing opinion is a betrayal of a community norm.
The linked “context” is not useful- it is literally false (there have been no recent adverts for 80K), its description of the post as an ad is debatable, and it’s sneaking in the connotation that all ads are bad and don’t belong here. (The claim that is is a PR post is similarly both debatable and sneaking in connotations.)
The overwhelming majority of LW users appear to agree that the post was in fact useful and high quality.
Let’s put aside my rejection of that assertion for a second and consider the implications.
The entire basis of and motivation for JGWeissman’s post was that people downvoted and criticised the post in question. Why is it that the current positive vote is somehow important and to be deferred to while the earlier negative vote was something to criticize, judge and change? Is the group consensus valuable only if, and to the extent that it happens to match your preferences?
The overwhelming majority of LW users appear to agree that the post was in fact useful and high quality.
I object to this statement. The current karma of that post is as well explained by people reading this post trusting JGWeissman and hastily upvoting that post to compensate for the community’s “unfriendliness to allies”. Given that it once stood at −7, this is at least as plausible theory as yours.
(I wouldn’t object if you have omitted the word “overwhelming”, though.)
If it ends up voted positive, why are we even having this conversation? Are we gonna make a big post whenever someone downvotes something that most people like? This is even worse than people who get downvoted and then complain about persecution or make a big fuss about it.
The community norm isn’t about the quality of posts, it’s about whether it’s fine to downvote things.
The community norm isn’t about the quality of posts, it’s about whether it’s fine to downvote things.
Sorry for the lack of clarity- I was referring to norms regarding disagreement and honesty. I interpreted Wedrifid as saying that jgweissman had violated them, given these passages:
What this post seems to be doing is trying to place yourself outside [the category of our allies]
[T]he misrepresentation (or perhaps ‘spin’) in the earlier part of that paragraph qualif[ies] as disingenuous.
All I see here is a bunch of cheap “Yay altruism” applause, some moralizing and a demand that users ignore details and quality of an actual post because they have some kind of external status that you wish to affiliate with.
I am. What this post seems to be doing is trying to place yourself outside that category. I am part of no group that encourages copy and paste PR posts being dumped on lesswrong.
You seem to be admitting that you are writing this post with full awareness of the context. That obviates any benefit of the doubt. It also makes the misrepresentation (or perhaps ‘spin’) in the earlier part of that paragraph qualify as disingenuous.
All I see here is a bunch of cheap “Yay altruism” applause, some moralizing and a demand that users ignore details and quality of an actual post because they have some kind of external status that you wish to affiliate with. I really wish lesswrong were not as susceptible to influences.
You are hindering us. More than that, you are drawing attention to one terrible (pseodo-)contribution and away from any actual contribution by this Todd fellow or about the 80k folks.
If you want to actually provide a useful benefit to a group you like then don’t try to shame us into supporting trash. Instead, write your own well researched post directly evaluating either 80k itself or one of the causes or activities that it engages with.
You are judging a post meant to gather questions, a survey, against the standard for presenting original research. We are talking about initial engagement, getting a sense of which questions we want answered.
If there was confusion about who 80K is, or about what sort of questions they are looking for, then it would be good to ask. What happened people dismissed it as an ad.
That makes no sense.
Oh no! They posted the same offer elsewhere on the internet! And you accuse me of moralizing. I am sick of your hypocracy. Learn to evaluate your own arguments as harshly as you evaluate those you disagree with.
So if I remind people that Less Wrong was founded with altruistic purposes, and that content that helps us be effectively altruistic is in fact on topic when people try to dismiss as ad spam, I am just using applause lights, according you.
This does not make sense as a response to the quote.
I disagree with this characterization of my post.
Yeah, that would have been better. I did what I have time for. I have a lot of other things going on. And there was this huge disconnect between how Luke Muelhauser and Carl Shulman were interacting with 80K, as opposed to Less Wrong in general.
Wedrifid, I really don’t like getting into these exchanges with you. You seem to have more time for it, and it is an effort to distangle your clever arguments. You seem to think that you can deliberately mislead people and still be honest. And I find it painfully ironic when you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
So, I stand by my assertion that it is worth engaging with 80K by providing them with questions we would like them to answer, and if you don’t agree, you can just let those of us who want to be involved do so, without erroneous complaints about spam.
I don’t recall having any significant exchanges with you—I don’t doubt that it could have happened.
It may be useful for you to consider that this exchange is yours. You took the podium at the forum (in the traditional sense) and made a speech denouncing your enemies, supporting your allies and advocating a certain ideas. Then many people (in this case myself among them) replied with their own denunciations, support or advocacy. A good rule of thumb is that when you tell a group of people not to do what they have chosen to do you will get some replies, unless for some reason you have the power to suppress dissent. You don’t have to reply to them. You don’t even have to read them—you are not the primary audience and nobody really expects to convince the original speaker that they are wrong. But the replies will (and should) be made nonetheless.
I sincerely wish I did. There is a lot going on in the dynamics of this situation that relates to and threatens virtues and ideals that I value and—at least on lesswrong where it is usually safe to do so—hold sacred. If I wanted to protect those ideals effectively I would of course have to go ahead and write my own post but for me writing eloquent posts takes a lot of time and initiative.
That is one way to be sure I remember you. The misleading usage of out of context quotes. I tend to recall all those who use this particular interpersonal tactic, whether against myself or others. Call it a pet peeve. Sometimes I’ve even provided an iterating counter. In this case I completely endorse the comment you link to. It is a straightforward renunciation of inflationary use of terms.
Nobody (that I have noticed) has said anything to the contrary. I stand by Eliezer’s exhortation:
“You have the downvote. Use it or USENET.”
I would like to better understand why you and others are reacting so strongly to both Todd’s post and JGWeissman’s. I think I may have said this before, but I really wish you’d write more posts relative to comments so you can explain your ideas more systematically.
Have you considered that they may not be deliberately quoting you misleadingly, but genuinely misunderstood your comments? In other words communicating is hard (inferential distance, etc) and it may be partly your fault that you’re being misleadingly quoted so often? I think I’ve very rarely if ever been misleadingly quoted out of context, and attribute that at least in part to wording my comments and posts very carefully and often providing caveats against possible misunderstandings.
The overwhelming majority of LW users appear to agree that the post was in fact useful and high quality. You would probably be more persuasive if, in this argument over whether the post was in fact valuable, you provided arguments. As is, you are asserting that it was terrible and then acting like jgweissman’s differing opinion is a betrayal of a community norm.
The linked “context” is not useful- it is literally false (there have been no recent adverts for 80K), its description of the post as an ad is debatable, and it’s sneaking in the connotation that all ads are bad and don’t belong here. (The claim that is is a PR post is similarly both debatable and sneaking in connotations.)
Let’s put aside my rejection of that assertion for a second and consider the implications.
The entire basis of and motivation for JGWeissman’s post was that people downvoted and criticised the post in question. Why is it that the current positive vote is somehow important and to be deferred to while the earlier negative vote was something to criticize, judge and change? Is the group consensus valuable only if, and to the extent that it happens to match your preferences?
I object to this statement. The current karma of that post is as well explained by people reading this post trusting JGWeissman and hastily upvoting that post to compensate for the community’s “unfriendliness to allies”. Given that it once stood at −7, this is at least as plausible theory as yours.
(I wouldn’t object if you have omitted the word “overwhelming”, though.)
If it ends up voted positive, why are we even having this conversation? Are we gonna make a big post whenever someone downvotes something that most people like? This is even worse than people who get downvoted and then complain about persecution or make a big fuss about it.
The community norm isn’t about the quality of posts, it’s about whether it’s fine to downvote things.
Sorry for the lack of clarity- I was referring to norms regarding disagreement and honesty. I interpreted Wedrifid as saying that jgweissman had violated them, given these passages: