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.
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: