Emphasis on the insane. It’s based on plainly absurd mythological nonsense used to maintain status hierarchies.
By their fruits shall ye know them, not by their roots. And I strongly disagree in any case.
You are blatantly trolling.
I’m not actually trolling. You should consider thickening the tails on your models of why I do or say things. I am seriously considering officially becoming Catholic—that’s how impressed with them I am.
Does replying to you rather than systematically downvoting constitute feeding a troll?
I’m not trolling, but if I were trolling, then yes, I think responding to me would constitute feeding me. (Seems to me like the answer is obvious, maybe the question was rhetorical for some reason.)
Please write a post, or several posts, in Discussion or off-site, about why you’re impressed by Catholicism, about the equivalence you draw between theological and mathematical concepts, and about all that stuff you’ve written vague comments on. I would especially like it to address why you like Christianity when other religions are so much prettier.
Please also shut up about religion unless someone brings it up first.
Please write a post, or several posts, in Discussion or off-site, about why you’re impressed by Catholicism, about the equivalence you draw between theological and mathematical concepts, and about all that stuff you’ve written vague comments on. I would especially like it to address why you like Christianity when other religions are so much prettier.
I plan on writing a treatise some time in the next year that should address the more technical stuff, won’t touch so much on why I like Catholicism in particular though. Not sure I agree other religions are much prettier—do you mean you find their concepts and perspectives more conceptually aesthetic? I think Catholicism is a lot more morally complex than many other religions. One way to make the comparison is with architecture: the optimization pressure put into architecture can act as a proxy measure for the optimization pressure put into the culture as a whole, including the philosophical and moral aspects of the culture. Anyway the only other religion I’m familiar with is Theravada Buddhism, it’s possible I’m overestimating the value of Catholicism simply due to lack of variety of knowledge.
Please also shut up about religion unless someone brings it up first.
Goody! (Unless it won’t be online, in which case non-goody.)
Not sure I agree other religions are much prettier—do you mean you find their concepts and perspectives more conceptually aesthetic?
Yes, with the reservation that I don’t actually understand your rephrasing.
I think Catholicism is a lot more morally complex than many other religions.
Judaism all the way, baby. I don’t actually know all the complexities of Catholicism (can haz link?), but I’ve been to a Catholic school and grok the general aesthetic of most big brands of Christianity. It likes close obedience to rigid rules (yay!) and submission (meh), hates anything pleasurable (feh) and clever thinking (boo), and drops everything Judaism did like a hot potato (noooo!). This covers the Puritans and Augustine, but apparently not the parts of Catholicism you’re talking about. I’m surprised that you think it’s complex, because the only thing I really like about the brand of Catholicism I got is that it’s simple. Maybe complicated theology like the casuists did?
By their fruits shall ye know them, not by their roots.
Their fruits are worse! (But some of those fruits—with the violent oppression and suchlike—you have said they should have done more of.)
I’m not actually trolling. You should consider thickening the tails on your models of why I do or say things. I am seriously considering officially becoming Catholic—that’s how impressed with them I am.
The latter precludes the former in my way of modelling internet contributions.
The latter precludes the former in my way of modelling internet contributions.
Ah, I see. Unfortunate that “trolling” is so ambiguous as to whether it’s about results or motivations (i.e.(?), immediate results or expected future results (potentially conditional on feeding/anti-feeding)). Results in e.g. Eliezer calling XiXiDu a troll even when XiXiDu clearly isn’t trolling in the conative sense. Steve suggested ghost netting for the non-conative case.
Ah, I see. Unfortunate that “trolling” is so ambiguous as to whether it’s about results or motivations
It’s probably a silly term. I should use it less—but would like there to be convenient replacements.
Results in e.g. Eliezer calling XiXiDu a troll even when XiXiDu clearly isn’t trolling in the conative sense. Steve suggested ghost netting for the non-conative case.
XiXiDu does troll in all senses of the term sometimes (according to both observed behavior and explicit self descriptions). It isn’t consistent. Eliezer’s usage is correct and it would have been better for lesswrong in general if this was identified by more people earlier.
You read Steve’s comment reply to you, right? I really don’t think XiXiDu’s self-characterizations are a reliable indicator of XiXiDu’s actual drives. I think you’re being unduly harsh on XiXiDu for political reasons, where “unduly” means that you’re incorrectly attributing motives to him in order to justify a political position that may or may not be correct either way, not that your decision to act as if he is purposefully trolling is itself an unjustified political move. I also think Eliezer’s bias to interpret his enemies as innately evil and/or stupid is evil & stupid—I hope that it hasn’t rubbed off on you, and that your agreement with him here is due to contingent personal factors.
...Hm. You almost certainly won’t change my mind about this, and I’m afraid I won’t change your mind, so perhaps we should agree to disagree. Politics is hard, let’s go shopping.
If I recall, I read it, found it naive and surprisingly superficial, downvoted and even replied.
I really don’t think XiXiDu’s self-characterizations are a reliable indicator of XiXiDu’s actual drives.
Self-characterizations are seldom reliable, but when they match observed behavior it is significant evidence. More to the point, the benefit of the doubt that people ‘mean well’ is undermined when their explicitly endorsed motives are also considered undesirable.
I think you’re being unduly harsh on XiXiDu for political reasons
The subject is rather political—and given the only loose relevance to the subject you were explaining to me I don’t have a reliable model of why you would choose to bring it up with a political assertion that I would clearly reject out of hand. Other parts of your point and even other applications we could have agreed upon.
I also think Eliezer’s bias to interpret his enemies as innately evil and/or stupid is evil & stupid—I hope that it hasn’t rubbed off on you,
And right here is one reason that makes me tempted to say we need new and better contrarians. Because it is utterly bizarre that I end up on a ‘side’ that leaves some people characterizing me as an Eliezer fanboy. I’m far more contrarian that I really ought to be and oppose Eliezer far more than most (hey—I do most things here more than most). The fact that I oppose (perceived) fools who corrupt the epistemic commons with highly undesirable practices and that by default such individuals take out their angst on Eliezer by no means makes me his acolyte.
If we had more contrarians that were remotely sane then perhaps I could avoid appearing to be more or less mainstream (a position I’m rather unfamiliar with).
I’m not sure about the whole ‘innately evil’ thing by the way. I can’t speak for Eliezer but for my part XiXiDu strikes me as merely the enemy of that which I am trying to protect (that is, my personal haven of at least tolerable levels of discussion standards). I actually think I’d get along well with him in person. He’s been up front with me even when he has opposed me or expressed his anger personally. I find that pleasant to deal with. I’d play board games with him (pretty much my primary standard of evaluating people). I just don’t want his influence here. (This doesn’t extend to all that pass for ‘contrarians’. Many others have personality traits that I don’t get along well with in person either.)
and that your agreement with him here is due to contingent personal factors.
Almost certainly. Selection effects and all.
Politics is hard, let’s go shopping.
Sure, until the next time politics gets brought up. Or until the next time I choose to respond to evangelism of Catholisism or demonic UFOs with verbal disapproval.
(You seem to have misinterpreted me (my intentions) on a few (relatively minor) points (which is probably why you don’t have a reliable model). Not worth getting into, just thought I should flag it for purposes of calibration.
And yeah, I also wouldn’t be as tempted to go out of my way to (correctly or incorrectly) defend XiXiDu’s (alleged) motivations if we had more/better contrarians.)
Emphasis on the insane. It’s based on plainly absurd mythological nonsense used to maintain status hierarchies.
You are blatantly trolling. Does replying to you rather than systematically downvoting constitute feeding a troll?
By their fruits shall ye know them, not by their roots. And I strongly disagree in any case.
I’m not actually trolling. You should consider thickening the tails on your models of why I do or say things. I am seriously considering officially becoming Catholic—that’s how impressed with them I am.
I’m not trolling, but if I were trolling, then yes, I think responding to me would constitute feeding me. (Seems to me like the answer is obvious, maybe the question was rhetorical for some reason.)
Please write a post, or several posts, in Discussion or off-site, about why you’re impressed by Catholicism, about the equivalence you draw between theological and mathematical concepts, and about all that stuff you’ve written vague comments on. I would especially like it to address why you like Christianity when other religions are so much prettier.
Please also shut up about religion unless someone brings it up first.
I plan on writing a treatise some time in the next year that should address the more technical stuff, won’t touch so much on why I like Catholicism in particular though. Not sure I agree other religions are much prettier—do you mean you find their concepts and perspectives more conceptually aesthetic? I think Catholicism is a lot more morally complex than many other religions. One way to make the comparison is with architecture: the optimization pressure put into architecture can act as a proxy measure for the optimization pressure put into the culture as a whole, including the philosophical and moral aspects of the culture. Anyway the only other religion I’m familiar with is Theravada Buddhism, it’s possible I’m overestimating the value of Catholicism simply due to lack of variety of knowledge.
No thanks, at least not categorically.
Goody! (Unless it won’t be online, in which case non-goody.)
Yes, with the reservation that I don’t actually understand your rephrasing.
Judaism all the way, baby. I don’t actually know all the complexities of Catholicism (can haz link?), but I’ve been to a Catholic school and grok the general aesthetic of most big brands of Christianity. It likes close obedience to rigid rules (yay!) and submission (meh), hates anything pleasurable (feh) and clever thinking (boo), and drops everything Judaism did like a hot potato (noooo!). This covers the Puritans and Augustine, but apparently not the parts of Catholicism you’re talking about. I’m surprised that you think it’s complex, because the only thing I really like about the brand of Catholicism I got is that it’s simple. Maybe complicated theology like the casuists did?
Their fruits are worse! (But some of those fruits—with the violent oppression and suchlike—you have said they should have done more of.)
The latter precludes the former in my way of modelling internet contributions.
Ah, I see. Unfortunate that “trolling” is so ambiguous as to whether it’s about results or motivations (i.e.(?), immediate results or expected future results (potentially conditional on feeding/anti-feeding)). Results in e.g. Eliezer calling XiXiDu a troll even when XiXiDu clearly isn’t trolling in the conative sense. Steve suggested ghost netting for the non-conative case.
Interesting, it appears that in some contexts the word “troll” is acquiring a usage similar to the word “fascist”.
It’s probably a silly term. I should use it less—but would like there to be convenient replacements.
XiXiDu does troll in all senses of the term sometimes (according to both observed behavior and explicit self descriptions). It isn’t consistent. Eliezer’s usage is correct and it would have been better for lesswrong in general if this was identified by more people earlier.
You read Steve’s comment reply to you, right? I really don’t think XiXiDu’s self-characterizations are a reliable indicator of XiXiDu’s actual drives. I think you’re being unduly harsh on XiXiDu for political reasons, where “unduly” means that you’re incorrectly attributing motives to him in order to justify a political position that may or may not be correct either way, not that your decision to act as if he is purposefully trolling is itself an unjustified political move. I also think Eliezer’s bias to interpret his enemies as innately evil and/or stupid is evil & stupid—I hope that it hasn’t rubbed off on you, and that your agreement with him here is due to contingent personal factors.
...Hm. You almost certainly won’t change my mind about this, and I’m afraid I won’t change your mind, so perhaps we should agree to disagree. Politics is hard, let’s go shopping.
If I recall, I read it, found it naive and surprisingly superficial, downvoted and even replied.
Self-characterizations are seldom reliable, but when they match observed behavior it is significant evidence. More to the point, the benefit of the doubt that people ‘mean well’ is undermined when their explicitly endorsed motives are also considered undesirable.
The subject is rather political—and given the only loose relevance to the subject you were explaining to me I don’t have a reliable model of why you would choose to bring it up with a political assertion that I would clearly reject out of hand. Other parts of your point and even other applications we could have agreed upon.
And right here is one reason that makes me tempted to say we need new and better contrarians. Because it is utterly bizarre that I end up on a ‘side’ that leaves some people characterizing me as an Eliezer fanboy. I’m far more contrarian that I really ought to be and oppose Eliezer far more than most (hey—I do most things here more than most). The fact that I oppose (perceived) fools who corrupt the epistemic commons with highly undesirable practices and that by default such individuals take out their angst on Eliezer by no means makes me his acolyte.
If we had more contrarians that were remotely sane then perhaps I could avoid appearing to be more or less mainstream (a position I’m rather unfamiliar with).
I’m not sure about the whole ‘innately evil’ thing by the way. I can’t speak for Eliezer but for my part XiXiDu strikes me as merely the enemy of that which I am trying to protect (that is, my personal haven of at least tolerable levels of discussion standards). I actually think I’d get along well with him in person. He’s been up front with me even when he has opposed me or expressed his anger personally. I find that pleasant to deal with. I’d play board games with him (pretty much my primary standard of evaluating people). I just don’t want his influence here. (This doesn’t extend to all that pass for ‘contrarians’. Many others have personality traits that I don’t get along well with in person either.)
Almost certainly. Selection effects and all.
Sure, until the next time politics gets brought up. Or until the next time I choose to respond to evangelism of Catholisism or demonic UFOs with verbal disapproval.
(You seem to have misinterpreted me (my intentions) on a few (relatively minor) points (which is probably why you don’t have a reliable model). Not worth getting into, just thought I should flag it for purposes of calibration.
And yeah, I also wouldn’t be as tempted to go out of my way to (correctly or incorrectly) defend XiXiDu’s (alleged) motivations if we had more/better contrarians.)
Doesn’t the causality mostly go the other way there?