The following quotes were heavily upvoted, but then turned out to be made by a Will Newsome sockpuppet who edited the quote afterward. The original comments have been banned. The quotes are as follows:
If dying after a billion years doesn’t sound sad to you, it’s because you lack a thousand-year-old brain that can make trillion-year plans.
— Aristosophy
One wish can achieve as much as you want. What the genie is really offering is three rounds of feedback.
— Aristosophy
If anyone objects to this policy response, please PM me so as to not feed the troll.
The following quotes were heavily upvoted, but then turned out to be made by a Will Newsome sockpuppet who edited the quote afterward. The original comments have been banned. The quotes are as follows:
Hmm, after observing it a few times on various forums I’m starting to consider that having a known, benign resident troll might keep away more destructive ones. No idea how it works but it doesn’t seem that far-fetched given all the strange territoriality-like phenomena occasionally encountered in the oddest places.
Hmm, after observing it a few times on various forums I’m starting to consider that having a known, benign resident troll might keep away more destructive ones. No idea how it works but it doesn’t seem that far-fetched given all the strange territoriality-like phenomena occasionally encountered in the oddest places.
This would be somewhat in fitting with findings in Cialdini. One defector kept around and visibly punished or otherwise looking low status is effective at preventing that kind of behavior. (If not Cialdini, then Greene. Probably both.)
It’s really mean to say someone isn’t cute and although this entire thread isn’t very productive I find it mean that my comment rejecting the meanness to WN was selectively deleted.
Alternately, it is toxic to describe trolling behavior as ‘cute’ when it isn’t, and hasn’t been either cute or particularly witty or intelligent in a long time. This. Behavior. Is. Not. Cute.. It is lame.
I’d rather live in a world where even if we disagree with each other, annoy each other, or waste each other’s time we still don’t say anybody isn’t cute.
The opposite of cute is disgusting and is not a concept that should be applied to humans.
I’d rather live in a world where even if we disagree with each other, annoy each other, or waste each other’s time we still don’t say anybody isn’t cute.
There is a difference between rejecting a “Will is a cute troll” meme being used to justify sock-puppet bait-and-switch abuse—by specifically referring to the behavior being not-cute—and simply saying that someone is not cute apropos of nothing. Your equivocation is either disingenuous or just silly.
I have begun to suspect that Incorrect is a Will sockpuppet.
The thought crossed my mind when the edit to the ancestor made it clear that Incorrect was trolling rather than well meaning yet confused. I clicked “close” rather than “comment” on the “It looks like Incorrect is Will, I’m not going to feed him here or elsewhere”, for obvious reasons.
Even calling someone’s behavior non-cute is mean. Even meanness is cute. Once you start calling humans or the things they do non-cute you open the door to finding humans disgusting.
Even if we were to assume his behavior was trollish, damaging to lesswrong, and/or unproductive, that shouldn’t make it non-cute.
By that same argument murder is cute, rape is cute, arson is cute, genocide is cute—and you prefer to live in a world where people call these things cute than in a world where they call them non-cute.
I do find some of Will Newsome’s contributions interesting. OTOH, this behaviour is pretty fucked up. (I was wondering how hard it would be to implement a software feature to show the edit history of comments.)
The following quotes were heavily upvoted, but then turned out to be made by a Will Newsome sockpuppet who edited the quote afterward. The original comments have been banned. The quotes are as follows:
— Aristosophy
— Aristosophy
If anyone objects to this policy response, please PM me so as to not feed the troll.
Defection too far. Ban Will.
Will is a cute troll.
Hmm, after observing it a few times on various forums I’m starting to consider that having a known, benign resident troll might keep away more destructive ones. No idea how it works but it doesn’t seem that far-fetched given all the strange territoriality-like phenomena occasionally encountered in the oddest places.
I’ve heard this claimed.
This behavior isn’t cute.
This would be somewhat in fitting with findings in Cialdini. One defector kept around and visibly punished or otherwise looking low status is effective at preventing that kind of behavior. (If not Cialdini, then Greene. Probably both.)
Yes it is, and not just a little bit.
The deliberate sabotage of threads? How cute will it be if he destroys the whole forum?
It’s really mean to say someone isn’t cute and although this entire thread isn’t very productive I find it mean that my comment rejecting the meanness to WN was selectively deleted.
Alternately, it is toxic to describe trolling behavior as ‘cute’ when it isn’t, and hasn’t been either cute or particularly witty or intelligent in a long time. This. Behavior. Is. Not. Cute.. It is lame.
I’d rather live in a world where even if we disagree with each other, annoy each other, or waste each other’s time we still don’t say anybody isn’t cute.
The opposite of cute is disgusting and is not a concept that should be applied to humans.
Example 54084954 of that fact that true-seeking and politeness are not correlated.
Also, a little fallacy of gray. Someone could be zero on the cute/disgusting scale, if even if it were so awful to label them disgusting.
Cuteness is a subjective evaluation, a way to interpret reality, not a fact.
There is a difference between rejecting a “Will is a cute troll” meme being used to justify sock-puppet bait-and-switch abuse—by specifically referring to the behavior being not-cute—and simply saying that someone is not cute apropos of nothing. Your equivocation is either disingenuous or just silly.
I have begun to suspect that Incorrect is a Will sockpuppet. Please cease to feed.
The thought crossed my mind when the edit to the ancestor made it clear that Incorrect was trolling rather than well meaning yet confused. I clicked “close” rather than “comment” on the “It looks like Incorrect is Will, I’m not going to feed him here or elsewhere”, for obvious reasons.
Please exterminate.
Here’s a conversation I had with Will a while back:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/cw1/open_problems_related_to_solomonoff_induction/6rlr?context=1#6rlr
But surely you agree that tricking people into saying “I think Will is Incorrect” is exactly the sort of thing that would amuse him?
This had better not start a trend of suspecting people with adjectival usernames to be sockpuppets.
Yours could also be interpreted as an adverb.
Even calling someone’s behavior non-cute is mean. Even meanness is cute. Once you start calling humans or the things they do non-cute you open the door to finding humans disgusting.
Even if we were to assume his behavior was trollish, damaging to lesswrong, and/or unproductive, that shouldn’t make it non-cute.
By that same argument murder is cute, rape is cute, arson is cute, genocide is cute—and you prefer to live in a world where people call these things cute than in a world where they call them non-cute.
You’re using the word “cute” wrongly.
Edited how?
If I remember correctly the second quote was edited to be something along the lines of “will_newsome is awesome.”
That is cute.. no? More childish than evil. He should just be warned that’s trolling.
There really should be a comment edit history feature. Maybe it only activates once a comment reaches +10 karma.
It was edited to add something like “Will Newsome is such a badass”—Socrates
I do find some of Will Newsome’s contributions interesting. OTOH, this behaviour is pretty fucked up. (I was wondering how hard it would be to implement a software feature to show the edit history of comments.)
If only the converse were true...
″...if you lack a thousand-year-old brain that can make trillion-year plans, dying after a billion years doesn’t sound sad to you”?
I’m confused as to what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that dying after a billion years sounds sad to you?
“If you lack a thousand-year-old brain that can make trillion-year plans, it’s because dying after a billion years doesn’t sound sad to you.”
I think meaning it’s unfortunate that thinking that dying after a billion years is sad doesn’t by itself give you the power to live that long. Maybe.
I was never one for formal logic, but isn’t that the contrapositive? I was under the impression that the converse of p then q was q then p.
Yes and that’s what nshepperd wrote.
Oh wow, never mind. My brain was temporarily broken. Is it considered bad etiquette here to retract incorrect comments?
When you retract the comment is simply struck-through not deleted, so no.
And therefore you would have a thousand-year-old brain that can make trillion-year plans.
Seems legit.