trolls like sam and his “I can’t say things, because you politically correct morons will downvote me into oblivion, but be sure that my arguments would be crushing, if I was allowed to make them, which I’m not, therefore I’m not making them” style of debate.
Sam dosen’t do that. Sam trolls by stating his opinions fully. He then refuses to provide evidence.
If the issue is e.g. whether science seems to indicate that the statistical distribution of physical and intellectual characteristic isn’t identical across racially-defined subgroups of the human race, or across genders, or across whatever, then it can be discussed politely, if the participants actually seek a polite discussion, instead of just finding the most insulting way possible to talk about them.
Race differences have already been explicitly discussed with little problem, if not prominently so, do a search. Gender, sexuality and sexual norms are the great unPC problem of LessWrong.
And if the participants are willing to use words like “average” and “median” and “distribution” and things like that, instead of using phrases that are associated with the worst metaphorical Neanderthals that exist in the modern world.
Dishonest generalization, find two posters in addition to Sam who do this. I will wait.
Now contrast this to the average (even average anon double log in account) pro-hereditarian LW-er who brings up such points. There are far more Quirrells than Sams here, and Sams get heavily downvoted except on the rare occasions they make more reasonable posts (though the particular poster has probably burned out some people’s patience and will get downvoted no matter what he says because he has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to our norms).
This is quickly devolving into the worst kind of politicking one finds on otherwise intelligent forums.
What I think enflames things far far worse is when people imply that you are incapable of discussing topics, but nonetheless hint at them. If the topic can’t be discussed, then don’t discuss it or hint at it at all.
But it is other people who keep dragging them up and discussing them. Politely stating that you disagree and they are wrong, getting then heavily up voted (which indicates a significant if far from majority fraction of LWers agree with the comment) is surely better than not interrupting what you see as a happy death spiral?
If it can be discussed, then discuss it plainly, clearly, politely; not trollishly or deliberately offensively or carelessly offensively
Have we been visiting the same forum? I have often up-voted your responses to Sam0345′s posts, indeed you nearly always successfully rebuke him. But I think your extensive interactions with him may be leading you to mistake an individual for a group.
Gender, sexuality and sexual norms are the great unPC problem of LessWrong.
I’ve decided to bow out of this thread—as I’ve not significantly studied either PUA, nor cared to read about previous PUA-related threads in LessWrong, I can barely understand what you’re talking about. Perhaps you’ve noticed a real problem that I haven’t, exactly because you’re focusing on different type of threads than I do.
And if the participants are willing to use words like “average” and “median” and “distribution” and things like that, instead of using phrases that are associated with the worst metaphorical Neanderthals that exist in the modern world.
Dishonest generalization, find two posters in addition to Sam who do this.
If it can be discussed, then discuss it plainly, clearly, politely; not trollishly or deliberately offensively or carelessly offensively
Have we been visiting the same forum?
The thing I had in mind was things like e.g. the guy who repeatedly and deliberately kept using the diminutive word “girls” to refer to female rationalists but “men” to refer to the male counterparts. This by itself—when I perceived he intended to belittle women in this fashion, or at least didn’t give a damn about not insulting them—prevented any meaningful discussion of the actual argument he was engaged in, (whether a male-only meetup would be useful or detrimental for the purposes of LessWrong).
The thing I had in mind was things like e.g. the guy who repeatedly and deliberately kept using the diminutive word “girls” to refer to female rationalists but “men” to refer to the male counterparts.
I’ve decided to bow out of this thread—as I’ve not significantly studied either PUA, nor cared to read about previous PUA-related threads in LessWrong, I can barely understand what you’re talking about. Perhaps you’ve noticed a real problem that I haven’t, exactly because you’re focusing on different type of threads than I do.
OB and early LW consistently blew up whenever PUA and related issues where discussed.
Sam dosen’t do that. Sam trolls by stating his opinions fully. He then refuses to provide evidence.
I provide ample evidence, which you guys vote into oblivion when you don’t like it:
Examples:
What is the race of the overwhelming majority of people who make race hate attacks, people who physically attack people merely for being of race different from their own?
Who had greater freedom of speech: Modern novelists and scriptwriters, or Elizabethan novelists and playwrights?
I provided plenty of evidence, and if you claim I did not, will provide it all over again, to be voted into oblivion all over again.
Who had greater freedom of speech: Modern novelists and scriptwriters, or Elizabethan novelists and playwrights?
Modern novelists and scriptwriters do.
You never provided a single piece of evidence that Elizabethan novelists and playwrights had greater freedom of speech. It was a completely unsubstantiated claim—and a ludicrous one given how well known the political restriction in free speech were at the time. You also completely refused to acknowledge all the detailed pieces of data for specifics bits of censorship or political pressure in Shakespeare that I provided.
Since you never acknowledge anything we say, nor ever provide any evidence to support the claims we actually dispute, and keep making further ludicrous claims instead, you’re properly considered a troll.
EDIT TO ADD:
What is the race of the overwhelming majority of people who make race hate attacks, people who physically attack people merely for being of race different from their own?
That depends on whether we’re discussing your nation or mine. Racial hate attacks are most definitely a white thing in Greece. Or Libya. I’m guessing in America it’s the other way around, corresponding to higher black crime statistics in general (whether hate crime or otherwise).
Sam dosen’t do that. Sam trolls by stating his opinions fully. He then refuses to provide evidence.
Race differences have already been explicitly discussed with little problem, if not prominently so, do a search. Gender, sexuality and sexual norms are the great unPC problem of LessWrong.
Dishonest generalization, find two posters in addition to Sam who do this. I will wait.
Now contrast this to the average (even average anon double log in account) pro-hereditarian LW-er who brings up such points. There are far more Quirrells than Sams here, and Sams get heavily downvoted except on the rare occasions they make more reasonable posts (though the particular poster has probably burned out some people’s patience and will get downvoted no matter what he says because he has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to adapt to our norms).
This is quickly devolving into the worst kind of politicking one finds on otherwise intelligent forums.
But it is other people who keep dragging them up and discussing them. Politely stating that you disagree and they are wrong, getting then heavily up voted (which indicates a significant if far from majority fraction of LWers agree with the comment) is surely better than not interrupting what you see as a happy death spiral?
Have we been visiting the same forum? I have often up-voted your responses to Sam0345′s posts, indeed you nearly always successfully rebuke him. But I think your extensive interactions with him may be leading you to mistake an individual for a group.
I’ve decided to bow out of this thread—as I’ve not significantly studied either PUA, nor cared to read about previous PUA-related threads in LessWrong, I can barely understand what you’re talking about. Perhaps you’ve noticed a real problem that I haven’t, exactly because you’re focusing on different type of threads than I do.
The thing I had in mind was things like e.g. the guy who repeatedly and deliberately kept using the diminutive word “girls” to refer to female rationalists but “men” to refer to the male counterparts. This by itself—when I perceived he intended to belittle women in this fashion, or at least didn’t give a damn about not insulting them—prevented any meaningful discussion of the actual argument he was engaged in, (whether a male-only meetup would be useful or detrimental for the purposes of LessWrong).
He really shouldn’t have done that.
OB and early LW consistently blew up whenever PUA and related issues where discussed.
I provide ample evidence, which you guys vote into oblivion when you don’t like it:
Examples:
What is the race of the overwhelming majority of people who make race hate attacks, people who physically attack people merely for being of race different from their own?
Who had greater freedom of speech: Modern novelists and scriptwriters, or Elizabethan novelists and playwrights?
I provided plenty of evidence, and if you claim I did not, will provide it all over again, to be voted into oblivion all over again.
Modern novelists and scriptwriters do.
You never provided a single piece of evidence that Elizabethan novelists and playwrights had greater freedom of speech. It was a completely unsubstantiated claim—and a ludicrous one given how well known the political restriction in free speech were at the time. You also completely refused to acknowledge all the detailed pieces of data for specifics bits of censorship or political pressure in Shakespeare that I provided.
Since you never acknowledge anything we say, nor ever provide any evidence to support the claims we actually dispute, and keep making further ludicrous claims instead, you’re properly considered a troll.
EDIT TO ADD:
That depends on whether we’re discussing your nation or mine. Racial hate attacks are most definitely a white thing in Greece. Or Libya. I’m guessing in America it’s the other way around, corresponding to higher black crime statistics in general (whether hate crime or otherwise).
Are attacks by police and the justice system which seem likely to be racially based included under race hate attacks?
And when I provide evidence that I provide evidence, you also vote that into oblivion