Yes, giving (or not giving) someone the benefit of the doubt on a particular occasion involves your opinions about the personally and not just what they’ve done on that occasion. No, I don’t see why that should be a problem. (Suppose an LW poster whom you know to be sensible and intelligent posts something that seems surprisingly stupid. I hope you’ll give serious consideration to the possibility that you’ve misunderstood, or they’re being ironic, or there’s some subtlety they’ve seen and you haven’t. Failing that, you’ll probably guess that for whatever reason they’re having a bad day. Whereas if someone whose contributions you regard as generally useless posts something stupid-looking you’ll probably just think “oh yeah, them again”. And there’s nothing wrong with any of that.)
The worst problem with mass-downvoting of the sort Eugine got booted for isn’t that his voting wasn’t completely blind to who wrote the things he was voting on. It’s that it ignored everything else.
(And: Yes, it is a violation of the professed norms around here to vote something down just because you disapprove of its author’s views. You ask that question as if we’re faced with a bunch of examples of people doing that, but I’m not seeing them.)
Hobby horses
LW has a bunch of pet topics. Effective altruism has (not always by that name) always been one of them. If someone only ever posts on LW about effective altruism, that in itself doesn’t make their contributions unhelpful. PUA is not in that situation; my impression is that a few people on LW are really interested in it, a (larger) few are really offended by it, and most just aren’t interested. So someone posting only about PUA is (all else being equal) providing much less value to LW than someone posting only about EA.
But all else is not equal. What advancedatheist is accused of isn’t merely posting only about PUA, it’s shoehorning PUA into discussions where it doesn’t belong. If someone did that with EA, I think there would be plenty of complaints and downvotes flying around after a while.
“Not exactly the same”
“Not exactly the same as the tarred-and-feathered pariah” is a pretty good defence, when the attack it’s facing is “see, you’re doing the same as the tarred-and-feathered pariah”. And actually what I’m saying is “Quite substantially less bad than the tarred-and-feathered pariah”. And you may recall that it was controversial whether Eugine should be sanctioned for his actions; so what I’m saying is actually “Quite substantially less bad than that guy whose behaviour we had trouble deciding whether to punish”.
Piling on
If someone posts something lots of people don’t like for political reasons and it gets jumped on for political reasons: no, I don’t like it much. Nor for that matter if they post something lots of people do like for political reasons and it gets upvoted to the skies.
It may at this point be worth remarking that, so far as I can see, advancedatheist’s comments are not heavily downvoted overall right now. Maybe that’s partly because of this discussion; I don’t know. But it doesn’t actually seem as if he’s being greatly harmed, or his comments being effectively silenced, on account of their political content.
Anyway: as I say, I think it’s a shame if something gets a huge pile of negative karma merely for being politically unpopular. But unacceptable or inconsistent with professed norms hereabouts? No, I don’t think so.
Kaj’s comments on social conservatives
I didn’t dispute that Kaj agreed he’d been too negative about social conservatives. I did dispute (and continue to dispute) that he did anything remotely resembling saying that they’re in league with Lucifer. What Kaj agreed with you about was the first of those; what you’ve claimed here and I’ve disagreed with is the second.
And no—for reasons I’ve already given, but you’ve completely ignored—it was not an instance of the scenario JoshuaZ described. Because
what JoshuaZ described was someone chucking in irrelevant anti-Republican comments into discussions they’re irrelevant to; whereas
Kaj’s article was all about dealing with political disagreement, a lot of it was about how important it is to understand your political opponents and not strawman them, and it just happened he didn’t do as good a job as he should have of doing that (even though, as I think we agree, he was trying to).
These are not remotely the same thing. Irrelevant politically-charged asides versus mentioning politics in an article about politics. Overt hostility to a particular group versus limited ability to portray a group accurately.
(Also: you can only cast one vote on a given article. The paragraph you didn’t like was one of dozens. I see no reason to think that what got Kaj’s article applauded and upvoted was that he misrepresented social conservatives rather than all the other stuff in it. Is it your opinion that if an article or comment contains anything in it that is less than perfectly charitable to the author’s political opponents, it should be downvoted? You might want to be careful about your answer.)
[I had mistakenly replied to my own post instead of yours. ]
Yes, giving (or not giving) someone the benefit of the doubt
It shouldn’t be about him, it should be about his post. Maybe he’s in league with Lucifer too, but that doesn’t make any of his posts any more true or false.
you’ll probably guess that for whatever reason they’re having a bad day. Whereas if someone whose contributions you regard as generally useless posts something stupid-looking you’ll probably just think “oh yeah, them again”. And there’s nothing wrong with any of that.
If having a bad day means writing a bad post, then you get a downvote.
You’re just letting your prior on the person determine your vote. Which you say you disapprove of.
Yes, it is a violation of the professed norms around here to vote something down just because you disapprove of its author’s views.
a (larger) few are really offended by it,
I’m not really big on giving offense utility monsters a veto. Once you pay the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.
People are offended at PUA. Do they really not comprehend that plenty of people find their views offensive in turn? Just as everyone is the hero in their own story, there’s a pretty good chance you’re the villain in the stories of a lot of other people.
But I admit that’s something of the clash of civilizations going on here. Many people feel that their group’s “offense” should tally up in the utility machine, and they should thereby get their way. I don’t.
where it doesn’t belong
So it doesn’t belong in the Open Thread?
Anyway: as I say, I think it’s a shame if something gets a huge pile of negative karma merely for being politically unpopular. But unacceptable or inconsistent with professed norms hereabouts? No, I don’t think so.
You just said:
Yes, it is a violation of the professed norms around here to vote something down just because you disapprove of its author’s views.
It shouldn’t be about him, it should be about his post.
When a post is somewhat ambiguous, it’s reasonable to consider its context. That includes considering who posted it and what their likely reasons were. (Because it influences what is likely to happen in the ensuing discussion, if any.)
I’m not really big on giving offense utility monsters a veto.
Just as well no one suggested that, then. If you’re suggesting that I am proposing giving offense utility monsters a veto, then I politely request that you reread the whole of the sentence from which you quoted eight words and reconsider what might be leading you to misinterpret so badly. (Incidentally: Kipling reference noted.)
Do they really not comprehend that plenty of people find their views offensive in turn?
I don’t see any reason to think otherwise. If someone came along who only wanted to talk about how awful the PUA crowd is, and wedged complaints about that into discussions in which they have no place, I don’t imagine that would be much more popular than advancedatheist’s alleged wedging of pro-PUA material into inappropriate contexts.
So it doesn’t belong in the Open Thread?
I think you are mixing levels here. I am not complaining about advancedatheist, I am commenting on philh’s complaints about him and on the parallels you’re drawing. The accusation being levelled at advancedatheist (or at least part of it) is that he tries to shove PUA advocacy into discussions of other things. If in fact all he’s been doing is saying “yay PUA” in top-level open thread comments, then it’s an unfair accusation (though I think “yay PUA” and “boo PUA” belong in LW open threads about as much as “yay President Obama” or “boo Manchester United Football Club”) but that’s an entirely separate question from whether there’s an inconsistency between complaining about Eugine Nier’s mass-downvoting and not complaining about the downvotes some of advancedatheist’s comments have received.
You just said: [...]
No contradiction. The distinction you may be missing is between “because you disapprove of its author’s views” and “because you disapprove of the views expressed in that comment”. If I post one comment saying “Adolf Hitler was an admirable leader and we should give his policies another try” and one saying “Kurt Goedel proved the relative consistency of CH with ZF by proving that CH is true in the constructible universe and that Con(ZF) implies Con(ZF & V=L)”, then it is a violation of local professed norms if the latter comment gets downvoted because the former is horrible, but not if the former one does.
These are not remotely the same thing. Irrelevant politically-charged asides versus mentioning politics in an article about politics. Overt hostility to a particular group versus limited ability to portray a group accurately.
It’s not that he was mentioning politics in an article about politics. Talking about political slurs would be relevant to an article about politics. Making political slurs generally wouldn’t be.
But altogether lost in the brouhaha over my original objections to Kaj’s post was that his false characterization made for a bad argument. He did worse than be uncharitable, he did worse than slur his opponents, he made a bad argument relying a smear for much of it’s force.
And as far as I was concerned, the people who upvoted him did much worse in circling the wagons around a bad argument dependent on a cheap slur, even after it was pointed out to them.
Is it your opinion that if an article or comment contains anything in it that is less than perfectly charitable to the author’s political opponents, it should be downvoted?
No, less than perfect is not my standard for downvotes.
Mischaracterizing your opponents as supporting something morally reprehensible probably qualifies. Making a bad argument based on such a mischaracterization certainly does. Defending the mischaracterization would as well.
“Benefit of the doubt”
Yes, giving (or not giving) someone the benefit of the doubt on a particular occasion involves your opinions about the personally and not just what they’ve done on that occasion. No, I don’t see why that should be a problem. (Suppose an LW poster whom you know to be sensible and intelligent posts something that seems surprisingly stupid. I hope you’ll give serious consideration to the possibility that you’ve misunderstood, or they’re being ironic, or there’s some subtlety they’ve seen and you haven’t. Failing that, you’ll probably guess that for whatever reason they’re having a bad day. Whereas if someone whose contributions you regard as generally useless posts something stupid-looking you’ll probably just think “oh yeah, them again”. And there’s nothing wrong with any of that.)
The worst problem with mass-downvoting of the sort Eugine got booted for isn’t that his voting wasn’t completely blind to who wrote the things he was voting on. It’s that it ignored everything else.
(And: Yes, it is a violation of the professed norms around here to vote something down just because you disapprove of its author’s views. You ask that question as if we’re faced with a bunch of examples of people doing that, but I’m not seeing them.)
Hobby horses
LW has a bunch of pet topics. Effective altruism has (not always by that name) always been one of them. If someone only ever posts on LW about effective altruism, that in itself doesn’t make their contributions unhelpful. PUA is not in that situation; my impression is that a few people on LW are really interested in it, a (larger) few are really offended by it, and most just aren’t interested. So someone posting only about PUA is (all else being equal) providing much less value to LW than someone posting only about EA.
But all else is not equal. What advancedatheist is accused of isn’t merely posting only about PUA, it’s shoehorning PUA into discussions where it doesn’t belong. If someone did that with EA, I think there would be plenty of complaints and downvotes flying around after a while.
“Not exactly the same”
“Not exactly the same as the tarred-and-feathered pariah” is a pretty good defence, when the attack it’s facing is “see, you’re doing the same as the tarred-and-feathered pariah”. And actually what I’m saying is “Quite substantially less bad than the tarred-and-feathered pariah”. And you may recall that it was controversial whether Eugine should be sanctioned for his actions; so what I’m saying is actually “Quite substantially less bad than that guy whose behaviour we had trouble deciding whether to punish”.
Piling on
If someone posts something lots of people don’t like for political reasons and it gets jumped on for political reasons: no, I don’t like it much. Nor for that matter if they post something lots of people do like for political reasons and it gets upvoted to the skies.
It may at this point be worth remarking that, so far as I can see, advancedatheist’s comments are not heavily downvoted overall right now. Maybe that’s partly because of this discussion; I don’t know. But it doesn’t actually seem as if he’s being greatly harmed, or his comments being effectively silenced, on account of their political content.
Anyway: as I say, I think it’s a shame if something gets a huge pile of negative karma merely for being politically unpopular. But unacceptable or inconsistent with professed norms hereabouts? No, I don’t think so.
Kaj’s comments on social conservatives
I didn’t dispute that Kaj agreed he’d been too negative about social conservatives. I did dispute (and continue to dispute) that he did anything remotely resembling saying that they’re in league with Lucifer. What Kaj agreed with you about was the first of those; what you’ve claimed here and I’ve disagreed with is the second.
And no—for reasons I’ve already given, but you’ve completely ignored—it was not an instance of the scenario JoshuaZ described. Because
what JoshuaZ described was someone chucking in irrelevant anti-Republican comments into discussions they’re irrelevant to; whereas
Kaj’s article was all about dealing with political disagreement, a lot of it was about how important it is to understand your political opponents and not strawman them, and it just happened he didn’t do as good a job as he should have of doing that (even though, as I think we agree, he was trying to).
These are not remotely the same thing. Irrelevant politically-charged asides versus mentioning politics in an article about politics. Overt hostility to a particular group versus limited ability to portray a group accurately.
(Also: you can only cast one vote on a given article. The paragraph you didn’t like was one of dozens. I see no reason to think that what got Kaj’s article applauded and upvoted was that he misrepresented social conservatives rather than all the other stuff in it. Is it your opinion that if an article or comment contains anything in it that is less than perfectly charitable to the author’s political opponents, it should be downvoted? You might want to be careful about your answer.)
[I had mistakenly replied to my own post instead of yours. ]
It shouldn’t be about him, it should be about his post. Maybe he’s in league with Lucifer too, but that doesn’t make any of his posts any more true or false.
If having a bad day means writing a bad post, then you get a downvote.
You’re just letting your prior on the person determine your vote. Which you say you disapprove of.
I’m not really big on giving offense utility monsters a veto. Once you pay the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.
People are offended at PUA. Do they really not comprehend that plenty of people find their views offensive in turn? Just as everyone is the hero in their own story, there’s a pretty good chance you’re the villain in the stories of a lot of other people.
But I admit that’s something of the clash of civilizations going on here. Many people feel that their group’s “offense” should tally up in the utility machine, and they should thereby get their way. I don’t.
So it doesn’t belong in the Open Thread?
You just said:
When a post is somewhat ambiguous, it’s reasonable to consider its context. That includes considering who posted it and what their likely reasons were. (Because it influences what is likely to happen in the ensuing discussion, if any.)
Just as well no one suggested that, then. If you’re suggesting that I am proposing giving offense utility monsters a veto, then I politely request that you reread the whole of the sentence from which you quoted eight words and reconsider what might be leading you to misinterpret so badly. (Incidentally: Kipling reference noted.)
I don’t see any reason to think otherwise. If someone came along who only wanted to talk about how awful the PUA crowd is, and wedged complaints about that into discussions in which they have no place, I don’t imagine that would be much more popular than advancedatheist’s alleged wedging of pro-PUA material into inappropriate contexts.
I think you are mixing levels here. I am not complaining about advancedatheist, I am commenting on philh’s complaints about him and on the parallels you’re drawing. The accusation being levelled at advancedatheist (or at least part of it) is that he tries to shove PUA advocacy into discussions of other things. If in fact all he’s been doing is saying “yay PUA” in top-level open thread comments, then it’s an unfair accusation (though I think “yay PUA” and “boo PUA” belong in LW open threads about as much as “yay President Obama” or “boo Manchester United Football Club”) but that’s an entirely separate question from whether there’s an inconsistency between complaining about Eugine Nier’s mass-downvoting and not complaining about the downvotes some of advancedatheist’s comments have received.
No contradiction. The distinction you may be missing is between “because you disapprove of its author’s views” and “because you disapprove of the views expressed in that comment”. If I post one comment saying “Adolf Hitler was an admirable leader and we should give his policies another try” and one saying “Kurt Goedel proved the relative consistency of CH with ZF by proving that CH is true in the constructible universe and that Con(ZF) implies Con(ZF & V=L)”, then it is a violation of local professed norms if the latter comment gets downvoted because the former is horrible, but not if the former one does.
It’s not that he was mentioning politics in an article about politics. Talking about political slurs would be relevant to an article about politics. Making political slurs generally wouldn’t be.
But altogether lost in the brouhaha over my original objections to Kaj’s post was that his false characterization made for a bad argument. He did worse than be uncharitable, he did worse than slur his opponents, he made a bad argument relying a smear for much of it’s force.
And as far as I was concerned, the people who upvoted him did much worse in circling the wagons around a bad argument dependent on a cheap slur, even after it was pointed out to them.
No, less than perfect is not my standard for downvotes.
Mischaracterizing your opponents as supporting something morally reprehensible probably qualifies. Making a bad argument based on such a mischaracterization certainly does. Defending the mischaracterization would as well.
[Deleted post mistakenly posted as a reply to myself. Moved up one level.]