Yes but it underlines what I was saying about “Morp.” And it also addresses people who were asking why I singled out Alicorn.
Whenever someone tells me I’m only doing something for attention or that I only hate on certain things because I’m excluded then I say: “Thanks Captain Obvious.” It throws them off a lot. People who are different are different not by choice but by force. Conventional social norms exert a massive pressure on every individual even ones with non-conforming parents/siblings/peers/teachers and the only reason why it doesn’t work is because an equal or greater pressure is going the other way.
So many groups, including Less Wrong, are full of so much, conscious or subconscious, self signalling and it destroys their ability to understand their own motivations or those of similar people.
The original post is all uptight about content, but content doesn’t matter. Socializing matters. No amount of actually thought provoking content is going to save LessWrong unless the community improves. But the communities own standards won’t allow it to improve because you aren’t properly regulating who is allowed to stay, among other issues, including the aforementioned issue of the community and not the content being the problem. Creating a surviving discussion website is not the same as creating a growing discussion website.
I won’t get into the drama that will develop if I explain what I mean about regulating who can post since you wouldn’t implement my suggestion anyways. But I think many people know what I mean even if they don’t agree, and we’ll leave it at that.
This reads more like you’re using my comment as an excuse to talk more about what you want to talk about than that you’re responding in any meaningful sense to the actual content of my comment.
The first 2 sentences address what you said. The rest is a massive tangent because staying on the same train of thought is hard for me. Also I was too lazy to go through the nesting to post that in a better spot.
I scare quoted dinner parties because they are the most ridiculously conventional upper middle class thing of all time. Even more than Valium.
Dinner parties are extraordinarily useful social tools. There’s a -reason- upper middle class people do them.
The causal relationship between “Being the sort of person to host dinner parties” and “Being upper middle class” doesn’t flow in only one direction.
Yes but it underlines what I was saying about “Morp.” And it also addresses people who were asking why I singled out Alicorn.
Whenever someone tells me I’m only doing something for attention or that I only hate on certain things because I’m excluded then I say: “Thanks Captain Obvious.” It throws them off a lot. People who are different are different not by choice but by force. Conventional social norms exert a massive pressure on every individual even ones with non-conforming parents/siblings/peers/teachers and the only reason why it doesn’t work is because an equal or greater pressure is going the other way.
So many groups, including Less Wrong, are full of so much, conscious or subconscious, self signalling and it destroys their ability to understand their own motivations or those of similar people.
The original post is all uptight about content, but content doesn’t matter. Socializing matters. No amount of actually thought provoking content is going to save LessWrong unless the community improves. But the communities own standards won’t allow it to improve because you aren’t properly regulating who is allowed to stay, among other issues, including the aforementioned issue of the community and not the content being the problem. Creating a surviving discussion website is not the same as creating a growing discussion website.
I won’t get into the drama that will develop if I explain what I mean about regulating who can post since you wouldn’t implement my suggestion anyways. But I think many people know what I mean even if they don’t agree, and we’ll leave it at that.
This reads more like you’re using my comment as an excuse to talk more about what you want to talk about than that you’re responding in any meaningful sense to the actual content of my comment.
The first 2 sentences address what you said. The rest is a massive tangent because staying on the same train of thought is hard for me. Also I was too lazy to go through the nesting to post that in a better spot.
I’m super confused about what your point is, what your goals are, and in particular why dinner parties run counter to your goals/preferences.