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.)
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?