Because no matter how much I thought about it, I couldn’t find a way in which the comment was a useful contribution to the site; rather, it seemed to be spam no matter which perspective I tried to view it in.
Crosslinking is potentially valuable—announcing that something from here has been crosslinked by you is not. If there’s some important response elsewhere to a post made here, that is notable and worthy. Stating that you’re trying to provoke such a response isn’t.
Because no matter how much I thought about it, I couldn’t find a way in which the comment was a useful contribution to the site;
right, gotcha.
RDF doesn’t seem to be very interested in the article. It has only had 1 response and 35 views so far, compared to 540 views and 37 responses for “Why do atheists bother going to funerals? ”. Any suggestions? Maybe I gave the article an uninteresting title?
I haven’t read that forum, but “[somebody] on why we should abandon religion” doesn’t sound like a very catchy title on an atheist forum. If I saw it, it probably wouldn’t grab my notice. “Oh, I already know why we should abandon religion, I wouldn’t be reading this forum if I didn’t, now would I?” would be the unconscious evaluation, and by then my eyes would have moved to the title of the next topic already.
In general, I’d say that “[person] on [subject]” is only a good topic if you know that your subject audience already knows who the person is, otherwise it provides no information. Eliezer’s certainly well-known among the transhumanist/singularitarian crowd, but among the general atheist crowd? I doubt it.
Crossposted this to the Richard Dawkins.net forums, with link and attribution.
EDIT: why the downvote?
Because no matter how much I thought about it, I couldn’t find a way in which the comment was a useful contribution to the site; rather, it seemed to be spam no matter which perspective I tried to view it in.
Crosslinking is potentially valuable—announcing that something from here has been crosslinked by you is not. If there’s some important response elsewhere to a post made here, that is notable and worthy. Stating that you’re trying to provoke such a response isn’t.
I don’t mind the crosslink but I agree it’s probably better to wait until there’s interesting responses at the other site.
right, gotcha.
RDF doesn’t seem to be very interested in the article. It has only had 1 response and 35 views so far, compared to 540 views and 37 responses for “Why do atheists bother going to funerals? ”. Any suggestions? Maybe I gave the article an uninteresting title?
I haven’t read that forum, but “[somebody] on why we should abandon religion” doesn’t sound like a very catchy title on an atheist forum. If I saw it, it probably wouldn’t grab my notice. “Oh, I already know why we should abandon religion, I wouldn’t be reading this forum if I didn’t, now would I?” would be the unconscious evaluation, and by then my eyes would have moved to the title of the next topic already.
In general, I’d say that “[person] on [subject]” is only a good topic if you know that your subject audience already knows who the person is, otherwise it provides no information. Eliezer’s certainly well-known among the transhumanist/singularitarian crowd, but among the general atheist crowd? I doubt it.
TBH I’ve never got particularly interesting discussions out of that forum, and I’ve tried quite hard.
Really? So have I.
This is interesting. Our work should be of interest to atheists, but the group on RDF don’t seem to be interested. Why?
Probably for the same reasons so many here are dismissive of Objectivists.