I don’t see any group of people on LW running around criticizing every new idea. Most criticism on LW is civil, and most of it is helpful at least in part. And the small proportion that isn’t helpful at all, is still useful to me as a test: can I stop myself from overreacting to it?
Civility >>> incivility, but it is insufficient to make criticism useful and net positive.
There is a LOT wrong with the below; please no one mistake this for unnuanced endorsement of the comic or its message; I’m willing to be more specific on request about which parts I think are good versus which are bad or reinforcing various confusions. But I find this is useful for gesturing in the direction of a dynamic that feels very familiar on LW:
In artificial intelligence, and particularly in the domain of nonmonotonic reasoning, there’s a standard problem: “All Quakers are pacifists. All Republicans are not pacifists. Nixon is a Quaker and a Republican. Is Nixon a pacifist?”
What on Earth was the point of choosing this as an example? To rouse the political emotions of the readers and distract them from the main question? To make Republicans feel unwelcome in courses on artificial intelligence and discourage them from entering the field?
Why would anyone pick such a distracting example to illustrate nonmonotonic reasoning? Probably because the author just couldn’t resist getting in a good, solid dig at those hated Greens. It feels so good to get in a hearty punch, y’know, it’s like trying to resist a chocolate cookie.
As with chocolate cookies, not everything that feels pleasurable is good for you.
You shouldn’t have posted this even if you agree with what it’s actually saying, let alone if you don’t.
And if you just don’t know what it’s actually saying, you really shouldn’t have posted it.
I intended to indicate “I do not agree with 100% of this comic’s content, nor with 100% of reasonable interpretations of its message.”
I did not intend to communicate “I disagree with 100% of this comic’s content, or with 100% of reasonable interpretations of its message.”
I posted it here correctly: to give a gesture in the direction of a particular problem/dynamic; it does in fact concisely and evocatively succeed at doing so.
I posted it here correctly: to give a gesture in the direction of a particular problem/dynamic; it does in fact concisely and evocatively succeed at doing so.
You could say the same thing for the Nixon example. That doesn’t justify using politically charged examples.
I deny that the burden of proof is where you claim it is. *shrug
(This is part of a larger issue where someone will be like “Heuristic X!” and other people, later, will act as though merely quoting the person who asserted Heuristic X is sufficient to demonstrate that Heuristic X is both correct-in-general and applicable-in-this-instance. Merely quoting that snippet does not, in fact, win you the argument!)
The Nixon example is politically charged by content. The sea lion comic only by context. If one doesn’t know that specific detail of history of the internet, it’s pretty neutral.
Out of curiosity, what is it “actually” saying? The comic strip has a whole wikipedia article, in which I did not find a politically charged meaning mentioned (obviously given the context I had to make an effort to get their without asking!).
It’s claiming that Gamergate supporters who don’t want to be called sexist, and who politely object to being called sexist, are behaving like the sealion in the strip.
But the strip itself uses a completely made up concept (of talking Sea Lions). I agree that very often that concept is used in bad faith (no matter how you put it, random outbursts on Twitter are not like talking in the privacy of your home, and you have no right to complain that random strangers are engaging you if you’re literally on the Engage Random Strangers Platform), but while the comic was written for a certain context, on its own it’s perfectly abstract. It’s just gesturing in the direction of what we could call a form of unproductive nagging. You can use obstructionism tactics in debates, like simply trying to annoy the other person to the point that they concede your point just to be left alone.
Looking at the strip itself, it’s pretty weird. The sea lion’s words are polite, but being in someone’s house uninvited is a violation of their property rights. How did he even get in—breaking and entering? Meanwhile, the person’s reaction is not to say “oh my god, how did he get in?” or “get out of here or I will call the police”, but to be unsurprised and annoyed.
In other panels where they’re having tea or breakfast, it’s unclear whether it’s in their house—in which case the same stuff as above applies—or in some third-party restaurant place, in which case they would at least have the recourse of complaining to the owner and trying to persuade him that this sea lion is bothering his patrons and driving away business. Even in public, if such behavior were persistent enough, I imagine it could rise to the level of “stalking” and be punishable by law; though this is probably a grey area, and let’s assume the sea lion is doing his best to remain technically within the law.
The strip could have had the sea lion follow them around while they’re outside in public, and maybe had them sigh in relief when they close the door to their house. It could have shown them arguing with an unsympathetic proprietor about his behavior. But no, they’re not even looking for any recourse against him. Instead, it showed the sea lion following them inside, everywhere, into their bedroom while they’re trying to sleep, and this is presented as just a fact of life. Why?
I won’t assume the worst motives—it’s possible that the author made the situation more extreme for absurdity and humor—but whatever the intent, clearly “he follows you into your bedroom when you’re trying to sleep” would intensely strengthen the elements of annoyance and of “oh god I can’t escape him” for a real person. If all the scenes with the sea lion were in public, the emotional point wouldn’t land as heavily… for those who don’t think about the assumptions. (The fact that it’s a talking sea lion generally encourages suspension of disbelief. It’s also a key part of the comic: a man following a woman into her bedroom uninvited would be interpreted very differently.)
The strip embodies an acute lack of distinction between “criminal trespass and stalking” and “annoying but maybe-permissible public behavior”. Blurring these together seems to be a key part of how it gives emotional weight to its point, which perhaps made it resonate with many more people than it otherwise would have.
The strip embodies the exact mindset that leads to “complaining that random strangers are engaging you when you’re literally on the Engage Random Strangers Platform”. I don’t think there’s a way it could make sense outside the context of social media platforms like that; the specific thing of “communications from randos appearing in your bedroom at night, and this being unsurprising” perfectly fits internet tech and not much else. (Getting phone calls all night would be similar, and actually worse if it prevented you sleeping, but you could unplug the phone—which is kind of the issue in a nutshell. I suspect the type of person with this mindset has their phone set to give audible notifications on all kinds of social media messages, keeps their phone nearby, and might not even set it to do-not-disturb mode at night.) The same applies to how the sea lion magically overhears the conversation and appears from nowhere in the first place, and no one is surprised at this, nor at how he keeps magically appearing in all subsequent places.
You could look at the strip and say “the point is that the sea lions are annoying, persistent, and their words are polite, and you’re supposed to abstract away everything else”. I think that would be wrong; I think that would mean abstracting away most of the logic (and the appeal) of the comic, and, among other things, when choosing a name for bad behavior I want far better epistemics than that.
I submit that “the point is that the people complaining about the sea lions have an immature attitude towards social media, plus they see nothing wrong with disparaging groups of people in public and are mad when called on it, and generally they are massive hypocrites”. (I know it’s not what they intend to say, but it is the meaning I take from their speech.) That being the case, it makes me uneasy when I see someone I respect use the term from the comic unironically.
I submit that “the point is that the people complaining about the sea lions have an immature attitude towards social media, plus they see nothing wrong with disparaging groups of people in public and are mad when called on it, and generally they are massive hypocrites”. (I know it’s not what they intend to say, but it is the meaning I take from their speech.) That being the case, it makes me uneasy when I see someone I respect use the term from the comic unironically.
Yeah, honestly that’s my take from it as well. But I think it’s true that in certain settings you can use the “polite questions” approach as obstructionism, and it might work. For example, any kind of work meeting, an assembly, a council of any sort. “Asking polite questions” as a sort of DDoS attack on the bandwidth of any discussion is a possible dirty tactic that gives you plausible deniability. However knowing the context, the actual complaint here is probably: “I made a sweeping statement on social media about people, who should not be offended by because obviously I wasn’t talking about all of them, just the bad ones, they know who they are, and then those people kept nagging me on the internet which then compelled me to answer and read their answers”. To which the sane answer is “then don’t make stupid sweeping statements on social media about people, or if you do and then are nagged for it, shut down your goddamn phone”. So I think the concept itself of sealioning isn’t completely out there, but the specific meaning the strip was originated from is actually a pretty self-centred perspective.
I see it as a case of a potentially useful term that just happened to be used badly on its very first occurrence.
If you take it in the abstract, it’s bad for a somewhat different but also somewhat related reason: If you’re prejudiced against X, X is justified in objecting under almost any circumstance that isn’t actually barging into your home.
If you go out in public proclaiming about how you just can’t stand Jews, any “unproductive nagging” you get from Jews is your own fault.
True enough, though that depends a lot on what the category is. Generally speaking, immutable characteristics are a no-go, but if I say “I hate fascists”, that’s not due to some general quality, that’s due to the specific choice of believing in fascism, which makes whoever considers themselves a fascist guilty, by definition, of possessing exactly the traits that I consider hateable. Still, I would say that insofar as I bring that up in a public forum, I should expect some pushback, and will in turn respond by explaining why and how precisely I think fascists are worthy of hate.
That said, really, I do think this is mostly a mix up between private/public spheres. Some people go on Twitter and generally treat it as if they were chatting only with close friends, then (either in good or bad faith) act outraged and surprised when random people eventually see their posts in their feed and answer them. But the whole thing is designed specifically to try to elicit those interactions: show provocative statements to people who will be provoked, because that maximises engagement. If you don’t understand that much you just shouldn’t be on Twitter (I’m not sure if I should, more in a general “holding onto your sanity” sense, and I understand it pretty well).
hi, I do that! I try to do it nicely, because I do it on purpose with an aim to help people feel challenged but welcome. I’m happy to also make a habit of criticizing bad criticism :D criticize me criticizing!
I don’t see any group of people on LW running around criticizing every new idea. Most criticism on LW is civil, and most of it is helpful at least in part. And the small proportion that isn’t helpful at all, is still useful to me as a test: can I stop myself from overreacting to it?
Civility >>> incivility, but it is insufficient to make criticism useful and net positive.
There is a LOT wrong with the below; please no one mistake this for unnuanced endorsement of the comic or its message; I’m willing to be more specific on request about which parts I think are good versus which are bad or reinforcing various confusions. But I find this is useful for gesturing in the direction of a dynamic that feels very familiar on LW:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9weLK2AJ9JEt2Tt8f/politics-is-the-mind-killer
You shouldn’t have posted this even if you agree with what it’s actually saying, let alone if you don’t.
And if you just don’t know what it’s actually saying, you really shouldn’t have posted it.
I intended to indicate “I do not agree with 100% of this comic’s content, nor with 100% of reasonable interpretations of its message.”
I did not intend to communicate “I disagree with 100% of this comic’s content, or with 100% of reasonable interpretations of its message.”
I posted it here correctly: to give a gesture in the direction of a particular problem/dynamic; it does in fact concisely and evocatively succeed at doing so.
You could say the same thing for the Nixon example. That doesn’t justify using politically charged examples.
I deny that the burden of proof is where you claim it is. *shrug
(This is part of a larger issue where someone will be like “Heuristic X!” and other people, later, will act as though merely quoting the person who asserted Heuristic X is sufficient to demonstrate that Heuristic X is both correct-in-general and applicable-in-this-instance. Merely quoting that snippet does not, in fact, win you the argument!)
The Nixon example is politically charged by content. The sea lion comic only by context. If one doesn’t know that specific detail of history of the internet, it’s pretty neutral.
Out of curiosity, what is it “actually” saying? The comic strip has a whole wikipedia article, in which I did not find a politically charged meaning mentioned (obviously given the context I had to make an effort to get their without asking!).
It’s claiming that Gamergate supporters who don’t want to be called sexist, and who politely object to being called sexist, are behaving like the sealion in the strip.
But the strip itself uses a completely made up concept (of talking Sea Lions). I agree that very often that concept is used in bad faith (no matter how you put it, random outbursts on Twitter are not like talking in the privacy of your home, and you have no right to complain that random strangers are engaging you if you’re literally on the Engage Random Strangers Platform), but while the comic was written for a certain context, on its own it’s perfectly abstract. It’s just gesturing in the direction of what we could call a form of unproductive nagging. You can use obstructionism tactics in debates, like simply trying to annoy the other person to the point that they concede your point just to be left alone.
Looking at the strip itself, it’s pretty weird. The sea lion’s words are polite, but being in someone’s house uninvited is a violation of their property rights. How did he even get in—breaking and entering? Meanwhile, the person’s reaction is not to say “oh my god, how did he get in?” or “get out of here or I will call the police”, but to be unsurprised and annoyed.
In other panels where they’re having tea or breakfast, it’s unclear whether it’s in their house—in which case the same stuff as above applies—or in some third-party restaurant place, in which case they would at least have the recourse of complaining to the owner and trying to persuade him that this sea lion is bothering his patrons and driving away business. Even in public, if such behavior were persistent enough, I imagine it could rise to the level of “stalking” and be punishable by law; though this is probably a grey area, and let’s assume the sea lion is doing his best to remain technically within the law.
The strip could have had the sea lion follow them around while they’re outside in public, and maybe had them sigh in relief when they close the door to their house. It could have shown them arguing with an unsympathetic proprietor about his behavior. But no, they’re not even looking for any recourse against him. Instead, it showed the sea lion following them inside, everywhere, into their bedroom while they’re trying to sleep, and this is presented as just a fact of life. Why?
I won’t assume the worst motives—it’s possible that the author made the situation more extreme for absurdity and humor—but whatever the intent, clearly “he follows you into your bedroom when you’re trying to sleep” would intensely strengthen the elements of annoyance and of “oh god I can’t escape him” for a real person. If all the scenes with the sea lion were in public, the emotional point wouldn’t land as heavily… for those who don’t think about the assumptions. (The fact that it’s a talking sea lion generally encourages suspension of disbelief. It’s also a key part of the comic: a man following a woman into her bedroom uninvited would be interpreted very differently.)
The strip embodies an acute lack of distinction between “criminal trespass and stalking” and “annoying but maybe-permissible public behavior”. Blurring these together seems to be a key part of how it gives emotional weight to its point, which perhaps made it resonate with many more people than it otherwise would have.
The strip embodies the exact mindset that leads to “complaining that random strangers are engaging you when you’re literally on the Engage Random Strangers Platform”. I don’t think there’s a way it could make sense outside the context of social media platforms like that; the specific thing of “communications from randos appearing in your bedroom at night, and this being unsurprising” perfectly fits internet tech and not much else. (Getting phone calls all night would be similar, and actually worse if it prevented you sleeping, but you could unplug the phone—which is kind of the issue in a nutshell. I suspect the type of person with this mindset has their phone set to give audible notifications on all kinds of social media messages, keeps their phone nearby, and might not even set it to do-not-disturb mode at night.) The same applies to how the sea lion magically overhears the conversation and appears from nowhere in the first place, and no one is surprised at this, nor at how he keeps magically appearing in all subsequent places.
You could look at the strip and say “the point is that the sea lions are annoying, persistent, and their words are polite, and you’re supposed to abstract away everything else”. I think that would be wrong; I think that would mean abstracting away most of the logic (and the appeal) of the comic, and, among other things, when choosing a name for bad behavior I want far better epistemics than that.
I submit that “the point is that the people complaining about the sea lions have an immature attitude towards social media, plus they see nothing wrong with disparaging groups of people in public and are mad when called on it, and generally they are massive hypocrites”. (I know it’s not what they intend to say, but it is the meaning I take from their speech.) That being the case, it makes me uneasy when I see someone I respect use the term from the comic unironically.
Yeah, honestly that’s my take from it as well. But I think it’s true that in certain settings you can use the “polite questions” approach as obstructionism, and it might work. For example, any kind of work meeting, an assembly, a council of any sort. “Asking polite questions” as a sort of DDoS attack on the bandwidth of any discussion is a possible dirty tactic that gives you plausible deniability. However knowing the context, the actual complaint here is probably: “I made a sweeping statement on social media about people, who should not be offended by because obviously I wasn’t talking about all of them, just the bad ones, they know who they are, and then those people kept nagging me on the internet which then compelled me to answer and read their answers”. To which the sane answer is “then don’t make stupid sweeping statements on social media about people, or if you do and then are nagged for it, shut down your goddamn phone”. So I think the concept itself of sealioning isn’t completely out there, but the specific meaning the strip was originated from is actually a pretty self-centred perspective.
I see it as a case of a potentially useful term that just happened to be used badly on its very first occurrence.
If you take it in the abstract, it’s bad for a somewhat different but also somewhat related reason: If you’re prejudiced against X, X is justified in objecting under almost any circumstance that isn’t actually barging into your home.
If you go out in public proclaiming about how you just can’t stand Jews, any “unproductive nagging” you get from Jews is your own fault.
True enough, though that depends a lot on what the category is. Generally speaking, immutable characteristics are a no-go, but if I say “I hate fascists”, that’s not due to some general quality, that’s due to the specific choice of believing in fascism, which makes whoever considers themselves a fascist guilty, by definition, of possessing exactly the traits that I consider hateable. Still, I would say that insofar as I bring that up in a public forum, I should expect some pushback, and will in turn respond by explaining why and how precisely I think fascists are worthy of hate.
That said, really, I do think this is mostly a mix up between private/public spheres. Some people go on Twitter and generally treat it as if they were chatting only with close friends, then (either in good or bad faith) act outraged and surprised when random people eventually see their posts in their feed and answer them. But the whole thing is designed specifically to try to elicit those interactions: show provocative statements to people who will be provoked, because that maximises engagement. If you don’t understand that much you just shouldn’t be on Twitter (I’m not sure if I should, more in a general “holding onto your sanity” sense, and I understand it pretty well).
Thank you.
hi, I do that! I try to do it nicely, because I do it on purpose with an aim to help people feel challenged but welcome. I’m happy to also make a habit of criticizing bad criticism :D criticize me criticizing!