When asked to explain her views on the topic, Dworkin replied: “Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. …”
Yeah, it sure sucks when people slightly misquote your actual beliefs, doesn’t it?
The ellipsis conceals “I’m not saying that sex must be rape”. You seriously don’t think “All sex is rape” would therefore be a misinterpretation of what Dworkin said?
ETA: Note that I’m primarily responding to academic bad form.
Dworkin spent her life espousing an ideology that saw guilt in everything men did. Normal, well-adjusted people who actually read her works could not make any sense of them except to mean that men automatically do lots of oppressive, evil things, and got the impression—right or wrong—she believed all sex is rape, which probably spiraled into a rumor that she said exaclty that.
When finally held to account for her views, she’s forced to realize how absurd her views actually are, and what they imply. So, she does what everyone would do—she backpedals: “Oh, no, I didnt’ actually believe that.”
But note that even when she has to disavow the minimal amount necessary to maintain street cred, she still groups all sexual intercourse in the same category as “violence”.
Yes, Dworkin was misrepresented—just not by very much, and certainly not enough to warrant all the handwringing.
I don’t think there was all that much ‘handwringing’. Most references to “all heterosexual sex is rape” are misattributed to MacKinnon, and if Dworkin did any favors for feminist discourse, it was to speed up the loss of credibility for radical feminism.
I was primarily pointing out that it is disingenuous at least to interpret a quote out of context where the context contained the negation of your interpretation.
The issue is whether Dworkin’s views imply “All sex is rape”, and her personal disavowal of that position when under the spotlight counts for nothing, which is why I don’t think it’s necessary for context. The critical part is what she still clings to, not what she can sheepishly disclaim.
Look, Thom, most anyone can voice a coherent sentence. So the fact that they say something, even about themselves, does not make it true. (It is weak Bayesian evidence of its truth if the statement is self-serving.)
I’m going to show you a trick:
I, Silas Barta, have the utmost respect for both men and women, and I never use language that is in any way objectifying to either.
See? I made a claim about my statements and character. And that doesn’t make it true! In fact, it’s going to utterly fail to convince Alicorn.
Can you start to see how the part I didn’t quote is less important than what I did quote? Can you start to see why “Oh, no, I totally don’t believe that stuff about all sex being rape” doesn’t carry much weight?
I, Silas Barta, have the utmost respect for both men and women, and I never use language that is in any way objectifying to either.
This is a statement about your prior actions.
“I’m not saying that sex must be rape”
This is a statement about her prior statement.
I don’t think these two are analogous.
I don’t know anything about Dworkin, but when you’re telling someone what they really think (in spite of their explicit statement to the contrary), you’re on pretty shaky ground. It’s much better to just call their statements inconsistent than to insist they really mean X.
EDIT: The fact that you find someone’s views weirdly and obviously inconsistent implies one of two things: their internal state is muddled (or they are rationalizing/confabulating), or you don’t actually understand their view. I’ve been on both sides of both cases in my life, it’s hard to tell the difference. It’s extremely frustrating when people who don’t understand my view on something try to tell me what I really think.
They’re both statements about the speaker’s position, and I explained the parallels, which you need to address. It’s elaborated here.
I don’t know anything about Dworkin, but when you’re telling someone what they really think (in spite of their explicit statement to the contrary), you’re on pretty shaky ground. It’s much better to just call their statements inconsistent than to insist they really mean X.
You know what’s even better than that? Quoting them. You know what’s even better than that? Quoting their reaction to criticism of the view in question. You know what’s even better than that? Quoting the part that shows how close the accusation is to being correct, because of what they’ll admit to when “defending” themselves.
Look back: which one did I do?
The fact that you find someone’s views weirdly and obviously inconsistent implies one of two things: their internal state is muddled (or they are rationalizing/confabulating), or you don’t actually understand their view. I’ve been on both sides of both cases in my life, it’s hard to tell the difference. It’s extremely frustrating when people who don’t understand my view on something try to tell me what I really think.
You know what’s also frustrating?
-When someone’s writing is so vague that most people read it as “all sex is rape”.
-When I’m told all my life that I’m an oppressor, and have to watch out for the invisible acts of oppression that I’m committing, which can only be revealed by consultation with a special class of offical censors, all the while men who ignore these rules attract all the women.
Where’s my pity party? It seems that patience is reserved for those who say inflammatory things, propogate myths for decades, and then manage to say with a straight face, “no, no, I didn’t mean—what was the unpopular part again? -- yeah, that. That I didn’t mean. But yeah, sex is violence. You can keep feeling guilty.”
Replying to this separately so it can be voted up/down separatly.
Where’s my pity party? It seems that patience is reserved for those who say inflammatory things, propogate myths for decades, and then manage to say with a straight face, “no, no, I didn’t mean—what was the unpopular part again? -- yeah, that. That I didn’t mean. But yeah, sex is violence. You can keep feeling guilty.”
Do you have a bias against feminism that goes beyond disagreement? This sounds to me to be the statement of someone who feels personally injured.
Yes, I do feel personally injured. I’m told all my life what is proper behavior around women and what is not, while, right in front of my face, men flout these rules (as best I understand them) and are, for lack of a better term, rewarded by those women.
I cannot interpret advice, of the type Alicorn has given, any more charitably than “I’m trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world.” To the extent that Alicorn is sincere and honest, she is an extreme outlier, and is asking for special treatment that cannot be justified by preferences of women in general.
To see why it would be special treatment, please refer to my previous comment, which may have the side effect of demonstrating my humanity. It details how I, like Alicorn, experience a negative physical reaction from PUA threads, but, unlike Alicorn, see this as a failing I need to overcome, rather than a reason to demand suppression of a topic.
I cannot interpret advice, of the type Alicorn has given, any more charitably than “I’m trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world.”
Then you have impaired translation skills. Alicorn has actually given advice here in the past that—when properly translated—is actually quite in accordance with many PUA teachings. She just didn’t use PUA buzzwords like “social proof” or “direct game” to describe them. (Granted, she tended to also use very blunt and judgmental language… but no more blunt or judgmental than I’d have expected from a male of her age.)
To the extent that Alicorn is sincere and honest, she is an extreme outlier
Outlier, yes. Extreme, no. She may or may not be correct about what “works” for her, but either way, it’s none of our business or concern. She has clearly separated her statements about the way she believes things should be from discussion of how they actually are, so I don’t think that disagreements with her regarding the “should”, should be conflated with her misrepresenting the “are”.
Then you have impaired translation skills. Alicorn has actually given advice here in the past that—when properly translated—is actually quite in accordance with many PUA teachings. She just didn’t use PUA buzzwords like “social proof” or “direct game” to describe them.
I’m not familiar with those discussions, so my previous statements don’t refer to them. All the advice I’m aware of from Alicorn is:
1) Her suggestion that presupposes your problem getting dates is already 99% solved, and that fundamental changes in your life, like getting an entire new set of friends with numerous female contacts receptive to you is easy
3) Her current advice, that men should navigate the world with extreme caution that they might say something on the forbidden list.
With respect to the other Alicorn posts you refer to, she may be right. But, if I were going for a minimum-message-length optimized description of the above Alicorn posts, a great hypothesis would be indeed “She’s trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world.”
Outlier, yes. Extreme, no.
I meant that she was an outlier in being offended by the “get a woman” usages, not that she’s an outlier in general honesty or sincerity.
I don’t think that disagreements with her regarding the “should”, should be conflated with her misrepresenting the “are”.
Just the same, she should distinguish her own idiosyncratic preferences from fundamentally unethical treatment of others, and in this area, she’s failed. The world simply does not agree with her claim about the atrociousness of talking about “getting a man” or “getting a woman” “because I have a lot of money/looks”.
I really do not know how to feel about this comment. While I appreciate the honesty, I really have problems with things like this:
I cannot interpret advice, of the type Alicorn has given, any more charitably than “I’m trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world.”
I think it is strange that you have essentially acknowledged a pack of inconsistencies in your experiences and teachings but are unable to show charitably to one particular side. Why that side? Why does the fault automatically lie in this direction? I assume there is a long history filled with reasons and this probably isn’t the place to hash everything out. But if you are unable to see Alicorn’s side charitably it is likely there is something wrong with your perspective.
I cannot interpret advice, of the type Alicorn has given, any more charitably than “I’m trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world.” To the extent that Alicorn is sincere and honest, she is an extreme outlier, and is asking for special treatment that cannot be justified by preferences of women in general.
Is it not equally likely that you are the outlier? That you have had an unusual experience combination of inaccurate advice from women? Or that you interpret such advice differently than normal?
I think that most people couldn’t express consciously what would attract them (as they don’t know until they see it—and everyone on this website is probably an exception to this rule to some extent), so I’m loath to accept your conclusion that they’re trying to remove you from the gene pool.
Yes, I do feel personally injured. I’m told all my life what is proper behavior around women and what is not, while, right in front of my face, men flout these rules (as best I understand them) and are, for lack of a better term, rewarded by those women.
People teaching you “proper behavior around women” are generally not trying to help you in the way you seem to expect. (In my experience, anyway)
Anyway, my only point was that you are not very neutral on this subject (which you admit), and you don’t seem to be taking that fact into account.
Silas definitely is not neutral on this topic, and perhaps could do with lowering the snark. That being said, he is not alone.
The kind of experiences Silas mentions seem common for men with certain types of personalities and social experiences (or lack thereof). They are common in the seduction community, which is massive (there is a pickup club called a “lair” in almost every major city in the world). It’s not at all uncommon for the following drama to unfold:
Male interprets prescribed behavior from women, or from various cultural authorities (e.g. religion, feminists, the media)
Male attempts to manifest those behaviors, yet encounters rejection due to some of those prescriptions being wrong, or incomplete
Male watches other men being successful who aren’t playing by the rules he was taught, or even engaging in diametrically opposite behaviors
I don’t think that female misstatement of their preferences is an attempt, conscious or subconsciously evolved, to eliminate men from the gene pool, however things may look. I summarize some research comparing female preferences and behaviors here.
I can’t really argue with this. I fit your described demographic quite well, but I don’t have a very similar experience. If it weren’t for the internet I’d probably still be single (and by now, bitter, too, perhaps...)
Is it not equally likely that you are the outlier? That you have had an unusual experience combination of inaccurate advice from women? Or that you interpret such advice differently than normal?
No, it not equally likely that I’m the outlier. Keep in mind, PUA instructors consistently, universally have the problem of “unlearning” their students of their previous conception of how to treat women. My shackling to this unhelpful carefulness about “respecting women” is typical. So typical, in fact, that simple misogyny often results in improvement in generating attraction.
I think that most people couldn’t express consciously what would attract them (as they don’t know until they see it—and everyone on this website is probably an exception to this rule to some extent), so I’m loath to accept your conclusion that they’re trying to remove you from the gene pool.
See how the mechanism might work? Women want male children that can “get the job done”. One way to filter out men who can’t given them those genes, is to feed bad advice to men. The only one who will listen to it are the ones who would let women walk all over them. And so they’re more likely to encounter men with good genes.
I’m not proposing this as a theory; I’m just showing how my proposal (women give bad advice to feed out the dumb and submissive) doesn’t require any ill will or conscious deception on the part of women; it can just be something they naturally gravitate toward without understanding why.
People teaching you “proper behavior around women” are generally not trying to help you in the way you seem to expect. (In my experience, anyway)
If what I expect is something that will actually lead to a relationship with mutual desire, that is correct.
Anyway, my only point was that you are not very neutral on this subject (which you admit), and you don’t seem to be taking that fact into account.
I’m not neutral on the topic, but that doesn’t matter. I’m the living evidence of what it’s like to walk on eggshells around women in the possibility that I might accidentally oppress them. That biases me in favor of telling others not to fall into the trap of buying into feminist standards while you get crowded out of the dating pool.
You make the mistake of thinking that women prefer alpha males/assholes consciously and intentionally while lying to you. This is almost certainly not the case. This is strange since the whole reason for PUA stuff coming up is that it represents an incidence of often unconscious bias.
In any case I firmly reject the view that “game” requires you to be a misogynist. My bet is that line of thinking is a useful error that some men find helpful for overcoming their previous tendencies to place women on pedestals and worship them. If you have general self-confidence treating people as your equal will end up resembling some versions of PUA style game.
You make the mistake of thinking that women prefer alpha males/assholes consciously and intentionally while lying to you.
I don’t think it’s that. I see two scenarios that are more likely to generate what I observe:
1) When women give advice, the question they are answering is, “Which attributes would I like to add to a guy, while changing nothing else?” rather than “What would make me actually attracted to a guy?” and the difference is enormous. Frequently, when I get advice from women, what I’m thinking in my mind is, “No, you’re telling me what you would like. I’m asking for what would work.”
2) Women have a hard time articulating what generates attraction in them, and, once they put it through the filter of “social acceptability” and “hurting feelings”, it just reverts to a repetition of what they think they’re supposed to like.
In any case I firmly reject the view that “game” requires you to be a misogynist.
I don’t think it’s an issue of misogynist/not misogynist. It’s an issue of “doing/not doing what I have been taught is ‘respectful’”. That is, the autistic-spectrum male “learning algorithm” may mistakenly infer certain behaviors as being “not respectful” and therefore “don’t do”, while this was not actually entailed by any teaching received from a female (at least, given the female’s implicit assumptions).
I don’t think it’s an issue of misogynist/not misogynist. It’s an issue of “doing/not doing what I have been taught is ‘respectful’”. That is, the autistic-spectrum male “learning algorithm” may mistakenly infer certain behaviors as being “not respectful” and therefore “don’t do”, while this was not actually entailed by any teaching received from a female (at least, given the female’s implicit assumptions).
Part of the problem might be boys learning to respect women by respecting their mother or some other female authority figure. But boys don’t treat their mothers as equals, they treat them as superiors. I wonder if there is a correlation between men who are popular with women and those with little sisters. In any case, the solution surely isn’t to get pissed at feminists but to recalibrate your understanding of what it means to respect women.
I wonder if there is a correlation between men who are popular with women and those with little sisters
The author of the “Double Your Dating” products actually explicitly teaches men to treat a woman they’re interested in as if she were “your bratty kid sister”, so clearly at least one PUG has noticed this connection.
When women give advice, the question they are answering is, “Which attributes would I like to add to a guy, while changing nothing else?” rather than “What would make me actually attracted to a guy?” and the difference is enormous. Frequently, when I get advice from women, what I’m thinking in my mind is, “No, you’re telling me what you would like. I’m asking for what would work.”
Off the cuff, my advice would be to find someone for whom you don’t need to worry about what behavior “would work” and instead find someone who genuinely shares your interests and is a joy to be with, and pursue a relationship with them.
But then, having been in a love-at-first-sight sort of situation, my advice is probably as helpful as “let them eat cake.”
I’m glad you acknowledge this is a “let them eat cake response.” Not worrying whether one’s behavior is “working” is a privilege of those with behavior that works.
Of course, it sounds mechanical, perhaps even objectifying to be talking about whether one’s behavior “works” “on” others, as if they were a machine being fed input. Yet this pragmatic mode of thinking is forced on some of us by being the only viable way to solve deficits in social and dating experience and knowledge, deficits that were also forced on us due to negligent socialization.
FWIW, to me, the big difference between a particular mode of thought being objectifying or not has less to do with how one models people’s reactions than what one’s goal is. If what “works” just means what gets you laid or makes you happy, regardless of its effect on others, then you’re treating the other person as just a tool to your own satisfaction. That, to me, is “objectifying” and, well, makes you a shitty, bad person as far as I’m concerned.
If, on the other hand, you actually care about the prospective other person’s feelings as well, and what “works” is what makes both of you happy, then I can’t really see a problem.
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the whole PUA thing. Is the point of a guy changing his behaviour in such ways:
to get his foot in the door, and then, once that’s done go back to being “himself”;
to have to keep up the charade forever; or
to change “himself” for good (i.e. keep up the behaviour, but in such a way that it ceases to be an unnatural charade)?
1, I can sort of understand. 2 seems like a great way to ruin your life. 3 seems like a disaster as well if it involves becoming someone who routinely does things that one now thinks are objectionable; but could be rather more positive if it instead involves, say, becoming someone who is more fun to be around and better able to enrich the life of a significant other.
Or is all of this missing the point, which is just to get laid in the short term, and not be around for the long term anyway?
You need to do 1 and 2 (keep the charade for as long as you need) as a temporary solution, since changing yourself permanently (acquiring the necessary social skills, building confidence, body language, etc) can’t be done quickly and easily.
What is more, having an interim solution can be helpful and gives a boost to the process of improving yourself as well, e.g. even a modest success with women can increase your confidence and give you necessary social practice. It’s sort of a multiplier on your efforts of improvement.
The answers to those questions are as diverse as the individuals themselves. Different teachers certainly advocate different things, but the more ethical ones advocate, as you say...
becoming someone who is more fun to be around and better able to enrich the life of a significant other.
And grasping some of the ideas involved in that has certainly been helpful in my marriage.
Think of #3 the same way you think of any kind of self-improvement work (or if you like, a bootstrapping AI). There is no reason for it to be at all objectionable. People change things about themselves all the time and no one objects.
I certainly never meant to suggest that change is objectionable per se. But saying “just think of it as self-improvement” begs the question of whether it’s actually improvement. If you find yourself trying to become someone who regularly does stuff you now find objectionable (as per the comment I was responding to) then there’s a decent chance you’re actually engaged in an act of self-debasement instead.
FWIW, I didn’t intend the colloquial meaning (“raises the question”): I meant that the response “think of it as self-improvement” assumes precisely what is at issue (i.e. that the change is for the better).
Yes, I do feel personally injured. I’m told all my life what is proper behavior around women and what is not,
It seems that you have bought into anti-feminist propaganda—color me unsurprised. The so-called “proper behavior” you’re talking about has consistently been codified and endorsed by the existing power structure, as a means of perpetuating its self-serving mindsets and systemic biases.
This sounds to me to be the statement of someone who feels personally injured.
Btw, how is that different from Alicorn feeling ‘personally injured’ (or offended) by us having PUA discussions on LW? Can’t SilasBerta feel offended by any attempts to censor the topic?
I wasn’t trying to say he shouldn’t be offended. My implication was that because he’s offended, SilasBarta is having trouble dealing with the issue rationally. If Alicorn has a similar bias, she hides it better. (Disclaimer: I haven’t read all the comments on all the posts this has come up)
Alicorn is offended by a certain problem she perceives (objectification of women).
SilasBerta is also offended by a problem—silencing of discussions on a problem unrelated to Alicorn’s problem, but discussions on which happen to possibly include objectifications of some sort.
I don’t see why both shouldn’t be on an equal standing.
I am not trying to downplay SilasBerta’s feeling offended, and it is very possible that SilasBerta’s offense and Alicorn’s offense are about the same topic from different sides. If that is the case than my comment is probably out of place.
In my opinion, getting offended by [topic] reflects a potential issue with [topic] that may be worth addressing. Ideally, the offense as a result of the [topic] should disappear due to either (a) [topic] becoming less offensive or (b) the offended becoming unaffected by [topic].
Being offended by being offended by [topic] can be resolved by resolving the first layer of offenses. If there is a problem with the initial offense, getting offended doesn’t actually help since the initial offense is not likely to be resolved with the secondary offense.
In addition, a terrible cycle can appear if the initial offended takes offense to the offensive of the initial offense. Granted, you do not always get to choose what offends you, but when dealing with multiple layers of offense I think it is best to deal with the initial offense.
So, perhaps “categories” can be replaced by “priorities.”
Being offended by being offended by [topic] can be resolved by resolving the first layer of offenses.
Not if resolving the first layer depends on resolving the second layer first. I.e. he can’t resolve his problem because he’s being silenced when he attempts to discuss it.
Not if resolving the first layer depends on resolving the second layer first. I.e. he can’t resolve his problem because he’s being silenced when he attempts to discuss it.
The first layer problem existed before the second layer problem did. Why would the second layer have to be solved first?
Also, silencing someone is not really the same thing as being offended.
Unless you are talking about a scenario where silencing someone is the solution to the original problem? In that case the second layer really has nothing to do with offense to offense.
I feel there may be a huge misunderstanding here. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was my initial comment’s assumption that the second offense was an offense to an offense.
The first layer problem existed before the second layer problem did. Why would the second layer have to be solved first?
Because they’ve become interconnected.
I’m viewing PUA discussions as part of the solution to SilasBerta’s problem. Imposing a ban on such discussions hinders SilasBerta, which is why he’s offended. Basically, a ban on PUA discussions is effectively a ban on part of the solution to SilasBerta’s problem.
Now, I’m not saying that Alicorn and SilasBerta are equally justified in their requests. But both need to be evaluated as valid concerns.
Basically, a ban on PUA discussions is effectively a ban on part of the solution to SilasBerta’s problem.
Hardly. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other places on the ’net to get information, free or paid, and if he lives in or near a major metropolitan area there’s probably a “lair” he can join and the occasional professionally taught workshop or bootcamp.
Unless you’re looking for specifically rationalist-friendly information, this isn’t really the place to get it. It’s only on-topic here to the extent it’s relevant to various sorts of bias and akrasia issues. For example, the PUAs’ “3 Seconds Rule” is relevant to akrasia, and I almost brought it up in reply to the “It’s all in your head land” article, except that I’m really NOT wanting to start new PUA-related threads.
Hardly. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other places on the ’net to get information, free or paid
Well, a ban is a hindrance to the extent that a rationalist community could develop more rigorous and testable theories, and incidentally, they will probably weed out all of the misogynist and objectificationist (is there such a word?) stuff.
Well, a ban is a hindrance to the extent that a rationalist community could develop more rigorous and testable theories,
You must be new here. ;-)
All kidding aside, this community could develop plenty of rigorous and testable theories. It’s just incredibly doubtful that any of them would actually work in practice, for almost any definition of “work”, unless they were developed by people who already had practical experience.
In particular, this community is inflicted with massive “should” bias—i.e. confusing “ought” and “is”, while vehemently insisting that things that do work, shouldn’t, don’t work, should, and coming up with ludicrous explanations for both sets of falsehoods.
See, for example, the recent complaints about “marketing”; e.g. deriding breaking cryonics cost down to $1/day. There’s a reason marketers do that… and it’s because marketers have forgotten more than most people posting on this site have ever known about overcoming akrasia.
Because, if a marketer can’t overcome somebody’s akrasia enough to get them to shell out actual money, the marketer doesn’t get paid.
That’s why I group PUA and marketing under the same heading, of Arts That Work. When they’re too far wrong, the marketers don’t get paid and the PUAs don’t get laid, so there’s an inherent control over how far they can stray from the truth. This control does not apply so well to general works of self-help, or to armchair ev-psych theorizing. I actually learned far more about akrasia and motivation from marketers and PUAs than I ever did from self-help books or science papers.
(Btw, the scientific principle behind using per diem breakdown is incredibly relevant to any sort of personal change project, and it involves a statistical rule discovered by Prochaska, Norcross et al regarding the precise number of standard deviations in a person’s change of evaluation regarding the pros and cons of a decision that will make them shift from “contemplating” to “acting”… a rule that holds constant across a dozen different kinds of changes, such as quitting smoking, starting an exercise program, etc. Per diem breakdowns are just one of several tools that the adept marketer uses to prompt an individual to make this evaluation shift, though I don’t know of any marketers who’ve made the connection between this statistical rule and the relevant practices. They do know, however, that persuasion must occur in the same sequence that the Prochaska rule says it does.)
Imposing a ban on such discussions hinders SilasBerta, which is why he’s offended.
If this is the case, than he is not offended by Alicorn’s offense. He is offended by a ban on such discussions. Which makes sense and has nothing to do with the layers I was talking about.
Like I said, I think there is misunderstanding of my original comment. To reword this:
Well, he can, but I wouldn’t put “being offended by [topic]” and “being offended by being offended by [topic]” in the same categories.
As this:
I don’t put “being offended by [topic]” and “being offended by being offended by [topic]” in the same categories, so hopefully that is not what he is doing. If he is offended by the proposed solution to the offense of [topic], that makes a little more sense.
They’re both statements about the speaker’s position, and I explained the parallels, which you need to address. It’s elaborated here.
I think you changed the example a little bit there (http://lesswrong.com/lw/13k/missing_the_trees_for_the_forest/yrh). What you wrote there I don’t have any problem with. Whether it’s a charitable reading of Dworkin or a straw(wo)man, I have no knowledge. Since I don’t feel like reading up on her, I am inclined to grant you that interpretation for the sake of conversation.
You know what’s even better than that? Quoting them. You know what’s even better than that? Quoting their reaction to criticism of the view in question. You know what’s even better than that? Quoting the part that shows how close the accusation is to being correct, because of what they’ll admit to when “defending” themselves.
That’s fine, but packing that whole line of thinking into the act of omitting half of a quotation is bound to give people the wrong impression. If you think “all sex is rape” is consistent, on the whole, with someone’s work, you can just say that’s what you think. Hell, I don’t know anything about her in particular and personally find radical feminist thought to be weird and wrong, so I wouldn’t even argue with you.
But don’t do half a job quoting someone; if in your original comment on the subject contained the words “and I know immediately afterwards she disclaims the obvious interpretation of this sentence, but that is clearly an out-of-character statement for her and probably does not reflect her true view, given all the other things she’s said,” then we would not be having this conversation.
When I’m told all my life that I’m an oppressor, and have to watch out for the invisible acts of oppression that I’m committing, which can only be revealed by consultation with a special class of offical censors, all the while men who ignore these rules attract all the women.
I certainly don’t support what you’re reacting to. If it’s not already clear, I find radical feminism quite hypocritical, assuming I understand it. I suppose my few comments on this have given the impression that I’m on Alicorn’s “side”, whatever that means, but I’m actually pretty neutral on the whole thing, I can understand both positions. My comments have admittedly been on the “moderate feminist” side, but only because it’s been less well represented (quantity, not quality, my subjective opinion) and I thought I could contribute something positive.
But don’t do half a job quoting someone; if in your original comment on the subject contained the words “and I know immediately afterwards she disclaims the obvious interpretation of this sentence, but that is clearly an out-of-character statement for her and probably does not reflect her true view, given all the other things she’s said,” then we would not be having this conversation.
Okay, fair point. I thought it was obvious why the next sentence should carry so little weight, but even so, I should have explained that that was the reason for the exclusion.
ETA: I’ve added a clarifier to the initial comment.
I find radical feminism quite hypocritical, assuming I understand it.
Brief intro:
Radical feminism, simply put, is isomorphic to radical marxism. Where the marxist would interpret virtually anything as an instance of “class warfare”, the radical feminist would interpret virtually anything as an instance of “oppression by the patriarchy”. The “patriarchy”, in this sense, is that complex web of behaviors and assumptions that, on the whole, radical feminists believe was constructed by men to keep women down.
There is a charitable interpretation of the “patriarchy” that suggests that it was not created specifically by men, and it is not intended to keep women down, but then “patriarchy” is a bad name. Radical feminist works usually make more internal sense if you just read it as though “patriarchy” referred to an illuminati-like organization with immense power hell-bent on subjugating women using insidious methods like making the Washington Monument look phallic.
While there are still quite a few radical feminists alive and kicking, their views are largely discredited and a serious thinker should be embarrassed to use their arguments.
The Wikipedia article does a decent job of summarizing different movements in feminism. (For reference, when I put on my “feminist” hat, I’m a “liberal feminist”. Note that “Liberal” here is used in the same sense as in “Classical Liberal” or “Liberty”)
When I’m told all my life that I’m an oppressor, and have to watch out for the invisible acts of oppression that I’m committing, which can only be revealed by consultation with a special class of offical censors, all the while men who ignore these rules attract all the women.
Were your parents killed by angry feminists when you were a child?
This has been happening all your life? I’ve actively studied radical feminism and I don’t feel like I’ve been exposed to such a dire situation. And radical feminism lost credibility and practically died over decade ago now (I believe most scholars of feminism place it around when Carlin Romano penned his now-famous “Suppose I raped Catherine MacKinnon” review). Really, give it up man, war’s over, Dworkin’s been dead for many years and nobody important takes her work seriously.
-When I’m told all my life that I’m an oppressor, and have to watch out for the invisible acts of oppression that I’m committing, which can only be revealed by consultation with a special class of offical censors, all the while men who ignore these rules attract all the women.
You do realize that your beef is essentially with Gandhian non-violent resistance? Whether you care to admit it or not, you are on the controlling side of an unequal power relationship. It is grossly unethical—not to mention clearly unfeasible—to demand that people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint.
ETA: Why does this comment bother so many of you? I realize that political arguments are generally unwelcome here, but this should not be used to excuse comments as misguided as Silas’s.
to demand that people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint.
I think that equating hurt feelings to victimization and dehumanization is to trivialize actual violence… and in addition, it rewards playing “more victimized than thou” games.
I most certainly do not believe that “people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint”.
What I believe is that the feminist ideology I referred to is:
1) Misdirected. To the extent that there is oppression, it is by very high status men, not men as such. As Scott Adams put it, the Vice President doesn’t ask for my advise when deciding who to bomb.
2) Wrong. As revealed by their actions, women in general do not want men to act per (most of) the dictates of feminism, even if, as is unlikely, feminists do.
I’m not going to bring this topic in the justification for these positions, but suffice to say, my beliefs are nothing remotely like what you have attributed to me, and I have said nothing that gives you such a basis for believing so.
I have said nothing that gives you such a basis for believing so.
I think bogus’s comment is evidence to the contrary. The proper response when you’re misunderstood is not to be incredulous that you were misunderstood and leave it at that.
Your position is basically that kitten torture is a good idea because of your religious beliefs. I find that offensive.
The proper response when you’re misunderstood is not to be incredulous that you were misunderstood and leave it at that.
… Yeah, wanna rethink that one?
The rule you gave is a heuristic, or a prior, not inviolate physical law. And when the person stating their interpretation can’t even say what post gave him that idea, and given the numerous posts I gave before that clarified my position in directions nowhere near what bogus attributed to me, incredulity is justified.
And I did not “leave it at that”, I stated what my position was and left it to bogus to show the counterevidence.
And once again, Silas’s conclusion turns out to be correct. Here we see bogus shortly thereafter drift off into the land of “unfalsifiable all-encompassing conspiracy theories”.
I think I’ve done my rationalist due diligence here :-)
And I did not “leave it at that”, I stated what my position was and left it to bogus to show the counterevidence.
What counterevidence is needed? I realize that this most likely doesn’t apply to you, but when someone complains about being “told that they are an oppressor”, this is prima facie evidence that they were in fact behaving oppressively in some way—such as by taking part in a potentially oppressive power structure. If they were completely uninvolved, they would probably dismiss the original complaints as absurd. Sticks and stones will break my bones, and all that.
And once again, Silas’s conclusion turns out to be correct. Here we see bogus shortly thereafter drift off into the la-la land of “unfalsifiable all-encompassing conspiracy theories”.
That’s not an “unfalsifiable all-encompassing conspiracy theory”, it’s simple historical and sociological fact. Rules of “proper behavior” when relating to women are hundreds of years old, and their overall character has consistently been paternalistic and mildly depersonalizing. The worst aspects of them have since been corrected, but we still face a lot of cultural inertia.
Your position is basically that kitten torture is a good idea because of your religious beliefs. I find that offensive.
Was this a response to me? If so, I’m not sure where you’re getting this. For the most part, I don’t have “religious beliefs”, and I certainly haven’t advocated kitten torture. Do you have a citation?
I was trying to show you what it’s like to have a position attributed to you with no substantiation that looks like it comes right out of the blue. You know, like what happened to me here
This is the part where you’re supposed to realize the absurdity of your original response to my reaction, which you gave here.
You made a claim that seemed unsubstantiated; you seemed confused about my position, and so I responded by asking for clarification and a citation, as is appropriate for rational discourse. I’m not sure what was supposed to “fall into place”. My response does not seem absurd.
You were supposed to see that response as a satire of your response to my reaction to bogus. At least, after I specifically explained the satire, you were supposed to see it. Want to give it another go, and check out the links this time?
I had checked out the links in the first place. I even read those comments in the first place, as they were posted. You responded to bogus as though he could not possibly have any reason for thinking the way he did (explicitly saying that you’d said nothing that gives him a basis for believing what he does).
I pointed out that it’s likely that you did say something that gave him a basis for his beliefs.
I think my main issue with your comments here is that you seem to not be interested in being considerate of where the people disagreeing with you are coming from. Rather than asking for or offering clarification, you’re rude and dismissive.
I don’t think there’s much to be gained from attempting to discuss this further.
You responded to me as though I could not possibly have any reason for thinking the way I did about your kitten torture (explicitly saying that you’d said nothing that gives me a basis for believing what I do).
I could, just the same, point out that my very post attributing that position to you, was evidence that you said something that gave me that idea.
I think my main issue with your comments here is that you seem to not be interested in being considerate of where the people disagreeing with you are coming from. Rather than asking for or offering clarification, you’re rude and dismissive.
I don’t think there’s much to be gained from attempting to discuss this further.
Tu quoque: Exposing inconsistency, since before the fall of Rome! (tm)
N.B. Tu quoque, while perhaps a useful rhetorical technique, is a logical fallacy.
You responded to me as though I could not possibly have any reason for thinking the way I did about your kitten torture (explicitly saying that you’d said nothing that gives me a basis for believing what I do).
What I said was:
Was this a response to me? If so, I’m not sure where you’re getting this. For the most part, I don’t have “religious beliefs”, and I certainly haven’t advocated kitten torture. Do you have a citation?
I did not suggest that you didn’t have any reason to think that. Rather, I noted that I don’t know what your reasons are (“I’m not sure where you’re getting this”), I asked where you got that idea (“Do you have a citation”), and I did not explicitly say that I’d said nothing that would give you that idea, or at least those words don’t seem to appear in the comment you cited. (or were you using a different meaning of “explicit”?)
I could, just the same, point out that my very post attributing that position to you, was evidence that you said something that gave me that idea.
Yes, you could. Did you think I’d disagree with that? But I’m not sure why anyone would need such evidence—I’d already accepted that you might have a reason to think so and asked precisely what that might have been.
NB: Tu quoque, while perhaps a useful rhetorical technique, is a logical fallacy.
No, it’s the name of an argument that can be a logical fallacy. Pointing out how one’s own arguments invalidate one’s own position when consistently applied—which is what I was doing—is not a fallacy. But same diff, right?
I did not suggest that you didn’t have any reason to think that.
Right, because clearly it would have been unfair to think I had no reason to believe you like torturing kittens. The fact that I made it up whole cloth doesn’t matter. No, I said it with a straight face, and so I’m entitled to serious examination of my claims, regardless of the complete lack of mention of kittens or religious devotion in any of your posts.
If you want, I can generate a bunch more of these accusations from my random slander generator, and you can spend all night poring over my serious concerns that you might … how’s this, like to flash schoolchildren? Hey, I said it with a straight face, it must be strong enough evidence to warrant your undivided attention.
I’d already accepted that you might have a reason to think so and asked precisely what that might have been.
Basically, you have a choice here. You can engage in rational discourse where you take the other person’s arguments charitably and respond reasonably and as politely as possible. I will continue to attempt this. So far, I haven’t encountered anyone making baseless accusations about me all night, and if I did, I’d probably just downvote and ignore. Neither have you, and I’d hope you’d do the same, as a responsible member of this community.
I’d hoped to convince you that being just a little considerate was worth the almost no time it takes, so that the level of discourse on this community would not suffer.
You can engage in rational discourse where you take the other person’s arguments charitably and respond reasonably and as politely as possible. I will continue to do attempt this,
I’m sorry, but I have never seen you do this; I’ve repeatedly had to correct extremely uncharitable interpretations of my position from you.
So far, I haven’t encountered anyone making baseless accusations about me all night,
...Except the time I accused you of kitten torture. Oh right, that wasn’t baseless, because the existence of an accusation proves a basis (???)
and if I did, I’d probably just downvote and ignore. Neither have you, and I’d hope you’d do the same, as a responsible member of this community.
Yes, you’ve shown a general pattern of “Bad commenter! No karma for you!” as an alternative to actual articulation of where others’ claims are in error.
(That’s not something to be proud of.)
By your own standard, you suggest I should have just downvote comments like bogus’s rather than even telling him what my position actually is. This is fruitful for discussion, why?
Sadly, my ethics prevent me from modding comments in exchanges I’m directly involved in. It’s probably a vestige of listening to advice like Alicorn’s, and it puts me at a disadvantage against people who view the downmod as equivalent to an argument.
Sadly, my ethics prevent me from modding comments in exchanges I’m directly involved in.
Honestly, this notion never occurred to me. I interpret downvotes (upvotes) as a “I would like to see fewer (more) comments like this,” and feel free to vote on exchanges I’m involved in, trying to base my votes on quality of discussion and argument, rather than strictly whether I agree or not. Do you think your standard should be a community norm (even if it can’t be enforced)?
You’re kidding. It never occurred to you that you might not be neutral enough to accurately moderate during an argument you’re personally involved in?
What’s your “working theory” for why the site prevents upvoting your own comment, “even though” you could just register with a different name and upvote as a sockpuppet?
I … feel free to vote on exchanges I’m involved in, trying to base my votes on quality of discussion and argument, rather than strictly whether I agree or not.
Great, but why don’t you think your involvement compromises your ability to do so neutrally, especially when it’s a heated discussion? (Btw, on Slashdot, you’re prevented from moderating on any discussion where you’ve posted anywhere, which is probably where I got that ethic, plus previous EY rationality writings about when one’s neutrality is compromised.)
Do you think your standard should be a community norm (even if it can’t be enforced)?
Yes. I assumed people already had my level of restraint. But, like with following feminist advice, “no good deed goes unpunished”. I have a much lower karma level, and others a higher karma level, because I followed obvious rules about watching one’s own bias.
I humbly recommend you cancel any votes for or against me in exchanges you’ve been involved in.
It never occurred to you that you might not be neutral enough to accurately moderate during an argument you’re personally involved in?
I guess I’m just retarded???
I humbly recommend you cancel any votes for or against me in exchanges you’ve been involved in.
Done.
I have a much lower karma level [...]
I agree that drive-by mass downvoting out of personal animosity is bad, and it is of course unjust that you have apparently been subjected to it. But again, you should also consider that a nontrivial proportion of your recent karma loss has been because people legitimately find many of your recent comments to be of low-quality. For example, your tone is oftentimes rather hostile and condescending (“Can you do it? No? Then you don’t have a point,” “Like any bad lie, your position has forced you into defending ever-more-absurd positions,” “Know anyone like that?”, “There is no hope for this one,” “Is that too much to ask of you these days?” &c.), and maybe you can see why some people might think this worthy of a downvote?
No, you’re not retarded, but you could provide a better explanation for why it never occurred to you that you have a bias during a flamewar.
I humbly recommend you cancel any votes for or against me in exchanges you’ve been involved in.
Done.
Holy ----! Since I last came here an hour or so ago, my karma shot up about a hundred points.
I don’t know how much of that was you, but I very much appreciate that you are taking my suggestion.
I agree that drive-by mass downvoting out of personal animosity is bad, and it is of course unjust that you have apparently been subjected to it. But again, you should also consider that a nontrivial proportion of your recent karma loss has been because people legitimately find many of your recent comments to be of low-quality.
I accounted for this already. There were severe downmods for recent comments, accumulating over the past 18 hours. Then, in a much shorter period, I lost ~30 more, mainly on much older comments.
For example, your tone is oftentimes rather hostile and condescending (“Can you do it? No? Then you don’t have a point,”
I accept that my tone has gotten worse recently. But please, take a second look at that exchange. You refuted one analogy with another one which revealed you didn’t understand the topic. To untangle your misunderstanding required me to restate the context of the conversation, and then spell out the mapping in your proposed analogy, basically, doing all the intellectual heavy lifting for you.
I derived what your analogy needed to contain for it to be relevant to my point. But, if you could present such evidence, or even realize its applicability, you would have already done so.
And so I had to spend far disproportionate time responding to you, compared to your investment in the discussion. Yes, I could have said something instead, like, “Is there a quote from a men’s magazine that meets the criteria? I don’t think there is, which is what you need to make your point applicable.” But please understand my frustration there.
To untangle your misunderstanding required me to restate the context of the conversation, and then spell out the mapping in your proposed analogy, basically, doing all the intellectual heavy lifting for you.
“Do all the intellectual heavy lifting for you” could potentially sound antagonistic. Someone can be wrong (and you can explain why you think so) without you need to bring in meta-discussion about their intellectual skills.
Since I agree with you more often than not, I often find myself wishing that your substantive points were made in a different tone.
Thanks for your advice. I didn’t mean it that way, but I see how it can be read as a direct attack on someone’s intelligence. I’ll avoid such usages in the future.
but you could provide a better explanation for why it never occurred to you that you have a bias during a flamewar.
There’s no further explanation! It really didn’t occur to me that that was a reason to not vote! And it’s still not obvious to me that not-voting is unambiguously the right ethical standard. Of course I agree that it’s unethical to downvote a comment solely because you don’t like the conclusion or you don’t like the commenter—but that remains true whether or not you’re personally involved in the conversation. So as long as we’re going to talk about unenforceable personal standards of ethics, maybe the standard (which had been my policy) of “always and everywhere try to vote solely based on quality of discussion” is better than “don’t vote when I’m part of the discussion.”
I don’t know how much of that was you
Not very much. During the recent madness, I had downvoted you I think maybe three or four times, and upvoted you I think once, all of which have now been cancelled.
I accounted for this already.
Sure. Notice that I wrote that a “a nontrivial proportion of your recent karma loss” (emphasis added) could be legitimate; I didn’t mean to suggest that all of it was.
And so I had to spend far disproportionate time responding to you, compared to your investment in the discussion.
If you don’t think it’s worth your time to correct (what seems to you to be) someone’s egregious misapprehension, then don’t bother to do so. If you think a comment is poorly argued—maybe just downvote it?
So as long as we’re going to talk about unenforceable personal standards of ethics, maybe the standard (which had been my policy) of “always and everywhere try to vote solely based on quality of discussion” is better than “don’t vote when I’m part of the discussion.”
The problem with your alternative is that being in an argument alters your judgment of what counts as a good quality post. In additional to the usual “Politics is the mind-killer” truism, remember that we run on corrupted hardware.
You may think that it’s better to go by: “Don’t do X unless, all things considered, it would work for the greater good.” But even if you want to follow that rule, you actually do a better job following it if you just go by “Don’t do X”, as long as X is easily abused and self-serving. That’s the point of the post in the link.
And that’s why I think it just doesn’t work to say, “Oh, I’m modding down this comment because it’s an obectively bad comment, not because I’m in a heated flamewar with them.”
If you don’t think it’s worth your time to correct (what seems to you to be) someone’s egregious misapprehension, then don’t bother to do so. If you think a comment is poorly argued—maybe just downvote it?
See above for why I don’t downvote in arguments I’m currently involved in.
But even setting that policy aside for a minute, you got several upmods, which gave the false impression your post was high quality, when it wasn’t, and used a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly. Changing you from 3 to 2 wouldn’t have done anything; people would still think you had a good point, since they probably didn’t know the entire context that led up to the point about Cosmo.
And since the point about Cosmo was strong, and used to highlight a critical hole in Alicorn’s point, I couldn’t ignore it either.
Now, as long as we’re suggesting ways it could have gone better, how about this: why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about before you get involved? In this case, that would mean presenting the evidence your comparison requires: a case of a male-oriented magazine that uses language that the men here consider beyond the pale in its offensiveness.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example in mind.
Please correct me if I’m misreading you here. You don’t trust yourself to assess whether a comment deserves a downvote, because humans are subject to an array of egocentric biases, and yet somehow you do trust yourself to assess that the other person has no idea of what she’s talking about, even though humans are subject to an arrayofegocentricbiases?
You might want to consider doing this the other way, extending interpretive charity but not karmic charity. In fact, I hereby urge you to vote however you want to on whatever comments you want to. After all, a few undeserved downvotes are of little importance, whereas, say, continuous swipes at other people’s intellectual competence and integrity (e.g., “Yeah, wanna rethink that one?” “This is the part where you’re supposed to realize the absurdity of your original response to my reaction,” “I heard you make an all-too-convenient claim about what you were, like, totally about to do,” “Now for the hard part!” “You’re kidding. It never occured to you [...]?” “a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly,” “doing all the intellectual heavy lifting for you,” “if you could present such evidence, or even realize its applicability, you would have already done so,” “why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about [...]?” “I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example,” &c.) have a tendency to drag the quality of discourse down. It’s worth keeping in mind that the karma system is supposed to be a mechanism that exists in the service promoting good discussion; discussion does not exist in the service of amassing karma points. I would much rather someone abuse her voting power than constantly taunt and belittle people.
I would much rather someone abuse her voting power than constantly taunt and belittle people.
If only because the former is much easier to correct. I frequently upvote comments (including ones I disagree with) with negative scores that seem to have no obvious, objective flaws, on the assumption that they were downvoted for disagreement.
The danger here is that someone else might later upvote because they think it’s a good comment, and thus your ‘corrective’ upvote is misplaced (as if you’d come along later you’d never have made it)
For what it’s worth, I vote in threads in which I am active. Namely, I downvote and explain my downvote or upvote and add what I hope is a useful insight.
If I feel like I am getting emotional about anything or the topic is tilting personal I usually wait until the whole thing is finished and then go back through the thread and vote on which comments I thought were best/worst. Sometimes a later clarification makes an earlier comment worth more.
I humbly recommend you cancel any votes for or against me in exchanges you’ve been involved in.
I would not have honored such a request. My opinion still matters, even if you talking to me.
You’re kidding. It never occurred to you that you might not be neutral enough to accurately moderate during an argument you’re personally involved in?
What’s your “working theory” for why the site prevents upvoting your own comment, “even though” you could just register with a different name and upvote as a sockpuppet?
Note that one can both upvote and downvote comments in an exchange they’re involved in. I don’t have an explicit ethic of not voting in exchanges where I’m involved, but I’ve frequently upvoted comments that have disagreed with me and (IIRC) rarely downvoted them. I would suspect many people to be the same, and see little trouble with the practice. If you want to avoid a bias, “in exchanges where you’ve participated, only upvote comments that disagree with you (or are neutral), and only downvote comments that agree with you (or are neutral)” would sound like a better policy than an explicit ban on any voting.
While you do expect to be more biased than usual in the discussions you are involved in, in some cases the judgment is certain enough to not need this injunction.
I didn’t touch the old threads but last night I did vote down an entire thread of argument between you and thomblake (voting down each of your posts). This might have been part of your conspicuous drop. Nothing against either of you but when the argument is just about what you said or didn’t say it is of little interest to anyone else here and should be taken to private messages if you want to continue. I don’t know how else to kill bad, useless arguments that clog the recent comments section except to vote every comment in them down. If people feel this is inappropriate please let me know and I won’t do it in the future.
I agree that this is an appropriate use of voting, and that the conversation was of little interest to anyone else so probably should not have been made into theater. Good job.
As a rule of thumb, I usually don’t pay much attention to comment threads that consist of two people going hammer and tongs, and the nesting depth driving the subthread off the top page for the post.
You mean this one? Yes, it was quite a waste of time trying to explain to someone why not every accusation needs to be taken seriously, and I apologize for dignifying the opposing positions.
It would be nice if the people downvoting you would state who they were and why (It’s not me). I can think of two hypotheses:
A) There’s a cabal of feminists trying to suppress your view and you in particular
B) People in general have judged your comments in these threads of less quality
A) sounds unlikely (due to the sort of people who seem to frequent this site) but I will grant that it’s possible, and B) agrees with my own subjective judgment.
If you’ve lost karma on really old posts in unrelated topics then it would seem to be reasonable to conclude that one or two people are irrationally voting you down, however...
This recent 30+ point drop is almost all from the old threads, not the recent ones. I was up to ~300, then these recent −5s on recent threads took it down to ~265. After that, I took the 30 point hit on old threads over a short period.
How old? If it’s less than a week, it might just be somebody catching up on old comments. (If it’s more than a week, that would be suspicious, of course.)
I had that happen to me a while back to the tune of 80 karma lost in under half an hour. It’s not an appropriate use of the voting system and I hope whoever is/was doing it to you stops.
I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll recite the famous Voltaire quote until I’m blue in the face in your defense.
I have been driven-by several times. It sucks. Although I disagree with your stated habit of not voting and participating in the same thread, I have voted on your comments only as they’ve come up and only when I think there is a genuine issue of quality, not indiscriminately and on old comments. (I mention this because I’m probably an obvious suspect in some people’s minds.)
Maybe down-voting old comments shouldn’t affect karma. After all, the more comments you make, the more potential karma you can lose from one person going through your history. I could probably lose all of my karma just by offending the wrong person. Besides, someone changing the points of an old comment no one may ever read again from 8 to 7 is hardly improving the quality of discourse.
Besides, someone changing the points of an old comment no one may ever read again from 8 to 7 is hardly improving the quality of discourse.
I disagree. The idea is that people will read the old comments again, and the score of comments gives an impression to a random passerby what the community is about.
Sure, so long as it doesn’t give the impression that that is what the community was about at that time. This community is a moving target, and ideas and opinions change. If we decide to update old comments with new votes, do we risk losing something of archival interest? If we vote up a comment that says ‘A is B’, and a year later vote up a comment that says ‘A is not B’, going back and voting down the ‘A is B’ comment gives the false impression that this community is remarkably consistent. I think I’m blowing this out of proportion, though.
I would presume that the number of people willing to systematically downvote all of a particular person’s comments is rather low. Is this a rather common problem? Or does it just show up once a few months?
I’ve had drops of 5 or 6 karma at a time as someone goes through and downvotes all my comments in a particular thread, but I think that’s the price we have to pay; by and large, the karma system here seems to work very well, and provides a very useful method of gauging posts.
Not to be a punk, but were all of those posts deserving of being downvoted? I have no qualms with downvoting posts in batches as long as those posts would have been downvoted anyway. Periodically I read older articles or read the recent posts of certain people. If I find a thread of comments I think should be up or downvoted I do so. This may hit one person with 5 or 6 votes all at once.
I don’t think that getting 30 downvotes after a particularly volatile thread is necessarily misuse of the karma system. I can see how it would happen through legitimate use. As long as each vote was made within the full context of the comment, a drop of 30 is very plausible.
It is, however, much more convenient to say that someone is picking on you than to consider that no one bothered to read your comments until now.
This being said, SilasBarta’s notes about his recent hits do not appear to follow a legitimate pattern. I am not trying to point at anyone here, least of all SilasBarta; I am just noting that cries of, “Unfair!” don’t always point to someone abusing the system.
[B]y and large, the karma system here seems to work very well, and provides a very useful method of gauging posts.
I completely agree. I find the karma system very helpful.
As another data point here, someone seems to be doing the same thing to me, only in reverse—I just gained 20 or so karma in a short time period, and none of it apparently on recent comments. I don’t see how this could be someone trying to abuse the system, unless I have some insane stalker fan or something.
ETA: or a Tyler Durden sockpuppet.
ETA2: SoullessAutomaton’s comment seems the most plausible.
Maybe someone who knows your voting habits and and wants to annoy you by searching through your history for your worst comments, in order to put upvotes on mediocre comments that you’ll never be able to downvote?
Never underestimate the number of people on the internet with too much free time and too little sense. I don’t think this is a problem right now, though. Of course, if it does become a problem, it’s the kind that would be hard to identify.
From a database point, it may actually be very easy to find the culprits. I do not know if there is a timestamp on voting, but a sudden influx of downvotes from a particular person should be relatively obvious.
Not that I think any sort of data police needs to exist right now. Even if someone did start messing with the karma system I would rather the developers keep the features coming than worry about a troll.
Eliezer has mentioned trying to get such a monitoring feature built if it becomes apparent that it is becoming a frequent problem. It’s not to that point yet, apparently.
The issue is whether Dworkin’s views imply “All sex is rape”, and her personal disavowal of that position when under the spotlight counts for nothing, which is why I don’t think it’s necessary for context.
If you’re going to interpret her charitably, then her clarification that she doesn’t mean to say that all sex is rape is relevant to understanding what she did mean. Leaving out her clarification is deceptive.
If you’re not going to interpret her charitably, then it doesn’t matter what she said, as you can twist her words into meaning whatever you’d like.
Very well. Any future comment you make about my beliefs on this topic must now include the quote, “I, Silas Barta, have the utmost respect for both men and women, and I never use language that is in any way objectifying to either.”
After all, wouldn’t it be deceptive to leave out my clarification that I have respect for women and never use obectifying language? I mean, I said it with a straight face, and everything! Don’t people deserve to hear the full story?
“It’s not the speeches you can deliver, it’s whether you can deliver on the speeches.”—paraphrase of a cheesy Hillary Clinton quote
You’re being ridiculous. Her clarification was in the very next sentence of what you quoted, and it directly contradicted what you said. It’s nearly as bad as if you said “I’m not saying that blacks are inferior to whites” and I quoted you out of context as saying “blacks are inferior to whites”.
Her clarification was in the very next sentence of what you quoted, and it directly contradicted what you said.
And my point is that her disavowal (did I use too obscure of a word?) of that belief counts for nothing, when the rest of her actions say the opposite. That was the whole point of my comment about how people can say whatever they way, but that doesn’t make it true. And truth was the issue, not what someone can assert in a sheepish backpedal.
It’s nearly as bad as if you said “I’m not saying that blacks are inferior to whites” and I quoted you out of context as saying “blacks are inferior to whites”.
No, it’s like if I wrote book saying, “It would be much better if America didn’t have any blacks. Lynchings of blacks are, in a philosophical sense, an act of liberation.”
And then rumors went around saying that I think blanks should be lynched, and I responded to them by saying,
“Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea. Of couse, I wouldn’t advocate lynching blacks. But we have to remember the need for racial purity.”
And then someone posting on Less Wrong, that hey, SB’s views weren’t really misrepresented, because look at what he said even when defending himself, “Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea …”
And then you vigorously protesting that, “But look at the next sentence! Doesn’t that void everything else he’s ever written?”
And then you vigorously protesting that, “But look at the next sentence! Doesn’t that void everything else he’s ever written?”
You’re misreading me as well. I’m no fan of Dworkin, and it’s very clear that “all sex is rape” certainly sounds like the sort of thing she’d say (I’d make the same case for MacKinnon). I pointed out that leaving out her clarification was deceptive. It was a paradigmatic example of taking a quote out of context. Perhaps my wording was a bit strong in this comment when I said:
You seriously don’t think “All sex is rape” would therefore be a misinterpretation of what Dworkin said?
But it is very clear that you were not even attempting to read her charitably, nor give other people the chance to do so, by leaving out relevant context.
The ellipsis conceals “I’m not saying that sex must be rape”. You seriously don’t think “All sex is rape” would therefore be a misinterpretation of what Dworkin said?
ETA: Note that I’m primarily responding to academic bad form.
Dworkin spent her life espousing an ideology that saw guilt in everything men did. Normal, well-adjusted people who actually read her works could not make any sense of them except to mean that men automatically do lots of oppressive, evil things, and got the impression—right or wrong—she believed all sex is rape, which probably spiraled into a rumor that she said exaclty that.
When finally held to account for her views, she’s forced to realize how absurd her views actually are, and what they imply. So, she does what everyone would do—she backpedals: “Oh, no, I didnt’ actually believe that.”
But note that even when she has to disavow the minimal amount necessary to maintain street cred, she still groups all sexual intercourse in the same category as “violence”.
Yes, Dworkin was misrepresented—just not by very much, and certainly not enough to warrant all the handwringing.
I don’t think there was all that much ‘handwringing’. Most references to “all heterosexual sex is rape” are misattributed to MacKinnon, and if Dworkin did any favors for feminist discourse, it was to speed up the loss of credibility for radical feminism.
I was primarily pointing out that it is disingenuous at least to interpret a quote out of context where the context contained the negation of your interpretation.
The issue is whether Dworkin’s views imply “All sex is rape”, and her personal disavowal of that position when under the spotlight counts for nothing, which is why I don’t think it’s necessary for context. The critical part is what she still clings to, not what she can sheepishly disclaim.
Look, Thom, most anyone can voice a coherent sentence. So the fact that they say something, even about themselves, does not make it true. (It is weak Bayesian evidence of its truth if the statement is self-serving.)
I’m going to show you a trick:
I, Silas Barta, have the utmost respect for both men and women, and I never use language that is in any way objectifying to either.
See? I made a claim about my statements and character. And that doesn’t make it true! In fact, it’s going to utterly fail to convince Alicorn.
Can you start to see how the part I didn’t quote is less important than what I did quote? Can you start to see why “Oh, no, I totally don’t believe that stuff about all sex being rape” doesn’t carry much weight?
This is a statement about your prior actions.
This is a statement about her prior statement.
I don’t think these two are analogous.
I don’t know anything about Dworkin, but when you’re telling someone what they really think (in spite of their explicit statement to the contrary), you’re on pretty shaky ground. It’s much better to just call their statements inconsistent than to insist they really mean X.
EDIT: The fact that you find someone’s views weirdly and obviously inconsistent implies one of two things: their internal state is muddled (or they are rationalizing/confabulating), or you don’t actually understand their view. I’ve been on both sides of both cases in my life, it’s hard to tell the difference. It’s extremely frustrating when people who don’t understand my view on something try to tell me what I really think.
They’re both statements about the speaker’s position, and I explained the parallels, which you need to address. It’s elaborated here.
You know what’s even better than that? Quoting them. You know what’s even better than that? Quoting their reaction to criticism of the view in question. You know what’s even better than that? Quoting the part that shows how close the accusation is to being correct, because of what they’ll admit to when “defending” themselves.
Look back: which one did I do?
You know what’s also frustrating?
-When someone’s writing is so vague that most people read it as “all sex is rape”.
-When I’m told all my life that I’m an oppressor, and have to watch out for the invisible acts of oppression that I’m committing, which can only be revealed by consultation with a special class of offical censors, all the while men who ignore these rules attract all the women.
Where’s my pity party? It seems that patience is reserved for those who say inflammatory things, propogate myths for decades, and then manage to say with a straight face, “no, no, I didn’t mean—what was the unpopular part again? -- yeah, that. That I didn’t mean. But yeah, sex is violence. You can keep feeling guilty.”
Replying to this separately so it can be voted up/down separatly.
Do you have a bias against feminism that goes beyond disagreement? This sounds to me to be the statement of someone who feels personally injured.
Yes, I do feel personally injured. I’m told all my life what is proper behavior around women and what is not, while, right in front of my face, men flout these rules (as best I understand them) and are, for lack of a better term, rewarded by those women.
I cannot interpret advice, of the type Alicorn has given, any more charitably than “I’m trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world.” To the extent that Alicorn is sincere and honest, she is an extreme outlier, and is asking for special treatment that cannot be justified by preferences of women in general.
To see why it would be special treatment, please refer to my previous comment, which may have the side effect of demonstrating my humanity. It details how I, like Alicorn, experience a negative physical reaction from PUA threads, but, unlike Alicorn, see this as a failing I need to overcome, rather than a reason to demand suppression of a topic.
Then you have impaired translation skills. Alicorn has actually given advice here in the past that—when properly translated—is actually quite in accordance with many PUA teachings. She just didn’t use PUA buzzwords like “social proof” or “direct game” to describe them. (Granted, she tended to also use very blunt and judgmental language… but no more blunt or judgmental than I’d have expected from a male of her age.)
Outlier, yes. Extreme, no. She may or may not be correct about what “works” for her, but either way, it’s none of our business or concern. She has clearly separated her statements about the way she believes things should be from discussion of how they actually are, so I don’t think that disagreements with her regarding the “should”, should be conflated with her misrepresenting the “are”.
I’m not familiar with those discussions, so my previous statements don’t refer to them. All the advice I’m aware of from Alicorn is:
1) Her suggestion that presupposes your problem getting dates is already 99% solved, and that fundamental changes in your life, like getting an entire new set of friends with numerous female contacts receptive to you is easy
2) The infamous “Why can’t you whiners just meet women off the internet?” (gently brought back to reality by HughRistik).
3) Her current advice, that men should navigate the world with extreme caution that they might say something on the forbidden list.
With respect to the other Alicorn posts you refer to, she may be right. But, if I were going for a minimum-message-length optimized description of the above Alicorn posts, a great hypothesis would be indeed “She’s trying to clean the gene pool of any man submissive and stupid enough to actually follow this advice in the real world.”
I meant that she was an outlier in being offended by the “get a woman” usages, not that she’s an outlier in general honesty or sincerity.
Just the same, she should distinguish her own idiosyncratic preferences from fundamentally unethical treatment of others, and in this area, she’s failed. The world simply does not agree with her claim about the atrociousness of talking about “getting a man” or “getting a woman” “because I have a lot of money/looks”.
I really do not know how to feel about this comment. While I appreciate the honesty, I really have problems with things like this:
I think it is strange that you have essentially acknowledged a pack of inconsistencies in your experiences and teachings but are unable to show charitably to one particular side. Why that side? Why does the fault automatically lie in this direction? I assume there is a long history filled with reasons and this probably isn’t the place to hash everything out. But if you are unable to see Alicorn’s side charitably it is likely there is something wrong with your perspective.
Is it not equally likely that you are the outlier? That you have had an unusual experience combination of inaccurate advice from women? Or that you interpret such advice differently than normal?
I think that most people couldn’t express consciously what would attract them (as they don’t know until they see it—and everyone on this website is probably an exception to this rule to some extent), so I’m loath to accept your conclusion that they’re trying to remove you from the gene pool.
People teaching you “proper behavior around women” are generally not trying to help you in the way you seem to expect. (In my experience, anyway)
Anyway, my only point was that you are not very neutral on this subject (which you admit), and you don’t seem to be taking that fact into account.
Silas definitely is not neutral on this topic, and perhaps could do with lowering the snark. That being said, he is not alone.
The kind of experiences Silas mentions seem common for men with certain types of personalities and social experiences (or lack thereof). They are common in the seduction community, which is massive (there is a pickup club called a “lair” in almost every major city in the world). It’s not at all uncommon for the following drama to unfold:
Male interprets prescribed behavior from women, or from various cultural authorities (e.g. religion, feminists, the media)
Male attempts to manifest those behaviors, yet encounters rejection due to some of those prescriptions being wrong, or incomplete
Male watches other men being successful who aren’t playing by the rules he was taught, or even engaging in diametrically opposite behaviors
Male becomes bitter
I’ve done several posts on this subject on my blog: When You Have Feminist Guilt, You Don’t Need Catholic Guilt and Why Respecting Women as Human Beings is not Enough
I don’t think that female misstatement of their preferences is an attempt, conscious or subconsciously evolved, to eliminate men from the gene pool, however things may look. I summarize some research comparing female preferences and behaviors here.
I can’t really argue with this. I fit your described demographic quite well, but I don’t have a very similar experience. If it weren’t for the internet I’d probably still be single (and by now, bitter, too, perhaps...)
Very interesting—thank you for the links.
No, it not equally likely that I’m the outlier. Keep in mind, PUA instructors consistently, universally have the problem of “unlearning” their students of their previous conception of how to treat women. My shackling to this unhelpful carefulness about “respecting women” is typical. So typical, in fact, that simple misogyny often results in improvement in generating attraction.
The cause of an adaptation, the shape of an adaptation, and the consequence of an adaptation, are all separate things. It’s not necessary that women be trying to remove me from the gene pool, but certain adaptations give them certain rules for handling certain kinds of men. The useful advice that PUAs give, diverges sharply from any advice any woman will openly give you. So why is female advice so consistently divergent from working advice?
See how the mechanism might work? Women want male children that can “get the job done”. One way to filter out men who can’t given them those genes, is to feed bad advice to men. The only one who will listen to it are the ones who would let women walk all over them. And so they’re more likely to encounter men with good genes.
I’m not proposing this as a theory; I’m just showing how my proposal (women give bad advice to feed out the dumb and submissive) doesn’t require any ill will or conscious deception on the part of women; it can just be something they naturally gravitate toward without understanding why.
If what I expect is something that will actually lead to a relationship with mutual desire, that is correct.
I’m not neutral on the topic, but that doesn’t matter. I’m the living evidence of what it’s like to walk on eggshells around women in the possibility that I might accidentally oppress them. That biases me in favor of telling others not to fall into the trap of buying into feminist standards while you get crowded out of the dating pool.
You make the mistake of thinking that women prefer alpha males/assholes consciously and intentionally while lying to you. This is almost certainly not the case. This is strange since the whole reason for PUA stuff coming up is that it represents an incidence of often unconscious bias.
In any case I firmly reject the view that “game” requires you to be a misogynist. My bet is that line of thinking is a useful error that some men find helpful for overcoming their previous tendencies to place women on pedestals and worship them. If you have general self-confidence treating people as your equal will end up resembling some versions of PUA style game.
Good points, but I object to these:
I don’t think it’s that. I see two scenarios that are more likely to generate what I observe:
1) When women give advice, the question they are answering is, “Which attributes would I like to add to a guy, while changing nothing else?” rather than “What would make me actually attracted to a guy?” and the difference is enormous. Frequently, when I get advice from women, what I’m thinking in my mind is, “No, you’re telling me what you would like. I’m asking for what would work.”
2) Women have a hard time articulating what generates attraction in them, and, once they put it through the filter of “social acceptability” and “hurting feelings”, it just reverts to a repetition of what they think they’re supposed to like.
I don’t think it’s an issue of misogynist/not misogynist. It’s an issue of “doing/not doing what I have been taught is ‘respectful’”. That is, the autistic-spectrum male “learning algorithm” may mistakenly infer certain behaviors as being “not respectful” and therefore “don’t do”, while this was not actually entailed by any teaching received from a female (at least, given the female’s implicit assumptions).
Part of the problem might be boys learning to respect women by respecting their mother or some other female authority figure. But boys don’t treat their mothers as equals, they treat them as superiors. I wonder if there is a correlation between men who are popular with women and those with little sisters. In any case, the solution surely isn’t to get pissed at feminists but to recalibrate your understanding of what it means to respect women.
Respect=/=defer.
The author of the “Double Your Dating” products actually explicitly teaches men to treat a woman they’re interested in as if she were “your bratty kid sister”, so clearly at least one PUG has noticed this connection.
Off the cuff, my advice would be to find someone for whom you don’t need to worry about what behavior “would work” and instead find someone who genuinely shares your interests and is a joy to be with, and pursue a relationship with them.
But then, having been in a love-at-first-sight sort of situation, my advice is probably as helpful as “let them eat cake.”
I’m glad you acknowledge this is a “let them eat cake response.” Not worrying whether one’s behavior is “working” is a privilege of those with behavior that works.
Of course, it sounds mechanical, perhaps even objectifying to be talking about whether one’s behavior “works” “on” others, as if they were a machine being fed input. Yet this pragmatic mode of thinking is forced on some of us by being the only viable way to solve deficits in social and dating experience and knowledge, deficits that were also forced on us due to negligent socialization.
FWIW, to me, the big difference between a particular mode of thought being objectifying or not has less to do with how one models people’s reactions than what one’s goal is. If what “works” just means what gets you laid or makes you happy, regardless of its effect on others, then you’re treating the other person as just a tool to your own satisfaction. That, to me, is “objectifying” and, well, makes you a shitty, bad person as far as I’m concerned.
If, on the other hand, you actually care about the prospective other person’s feelings as well, and what “works” is what makes both of you happy, then I can’t really see a problem.
Btw, it’s mechanical on the side of the man as well—being forced to output behavior which you normally would not, and might even object to doing.
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the whole PUA thing. Is the point of a guy changing his behaviour in such ways:
to get his foot in the door, and then, once that’s done go back to being “himself”;
to have to keep up the charade forever; or
to change “himself” for good (i.e. keep up the behaviour, but in such a way that it ceases to be an unnatural charade)?
1, I can sort of understand. 2 seems like a great way to ruin your life. 3 seems like a disaster as well if it involves becoming someone who routinely does things that one now thinks are objectionable; but could be rather more positive if it instead involves, say, becoming someone who is more fun to be around and better able to enrich the life of a significant other.
Or is all of this missing the point, which is just to get laid in the short term, and not be around for the long term anyway?
You need to do 1 and 2 (keep the charade for as long as you need) as a temporary solution, since changing yourself permanently (acquiring the necessary social skills, building confidence, body language, etc) can’t be done quickly and easily.
What is more, having an interim solution can be helpful and gives a boost to the process of improving yourself as well, e.g. even a modest success with women can increase your confidence and give you necessary social practice. It’s sort of a multiplier on your efforts of improvement.
The answers to those questions are as diverse as the individuals themselves. Different teachers certainly advocate different things, but the more ethical ones advocate, as you say...
And grasping some of the ideas involved in that has certainly been helpful in my marriage.
Think of #3 the same way you think of any kind of self-improvement work (or if you like, a bootstrapping AI). There is no reason for it to be at all objectionable. People change things about themselves all the time and no one objects.
This “self” business is probably nonsense anyway.
I certainly never meant to suggest that change is objectionable per se. But saying “just think of it as self-improvement” begs the question of whether it’s actually improvement. If you find yourself trying to become someone who regularly does stuff you now find objectionable (as per the comment I was responding to) then there’s a decent chance you’re actually engaged in an act of self-debasement instead.
Just a reminder that “begging the question” and its variants are jargon in logic, and so it seems the colloquial meaning should be avoided here.
FWIW, I didn’t intend the colloquial meaning (“raises the question”): I meant that the response “think of it as self-improvement” assumes precisely what is at issue (i.e. that the change is for the better).
It seems that you have bought into anti-feminist propaganda—color me unsurprised. The so-called “proper behavior” you’re talking about has consistently been codified and endorsed by the existing power structure, as a means of perpetuating its self-serving mindsets and systemic biases.
Btw, how is that different from Alicorn feeling ‘personally injured’ (or offended) by us having PUA discussions on LW? Can’t SilasBerta feel offended by any attempts to censor the topic?
I wasn’t trying to say he shouldn’t be offended. My implication was that because he’s offended, SilasBarta is having trouble dealing with the issue rationally. If Alicorn has a similar bias, she hides it better. (Disclaimer: I haven’t read all the comments on all the posts this has come up)
Well, he can, but I wouldn’t put “being offended by [topic]” and “being offended by being offended by [topic]” in the same categories.
Alicorn is offended by a certain problem she perceives (objectification of women).
SilasBerta is also offended by a problem—silencing of discussions on a problem unrelated to Alicorn’s problem, but discussions on which happen to possibly include objectifications of some sort.
I don’t see why both shouldn’t be on an equal standing.
I think there may be a typo in there somewhere.
I am not trying to downplay SilasBerta’s feeling offended, and it is very possible that SilasBerta’s offense and Alicorn’s offense are about the same topic from different sides. If that is the case than my comment is probably out of place.
Why not?
In my opinion, getting offended by [topic] reflects a potential issue with [topic] that may be worth addressing. Ideally, the offense as a result of the [topic] should disappear due to either (a) [topic] becoming less offensive or (b) the offended becoming unaffected by [topic].
Being offended by being offended by [topic] can be resolved by resolving the first layer of offenses. If there is a problem with the initial offense, getting offended doesn’t actually help since the initial offense is not likely to be resolved with the secondary offense.
In addition, a terrible cycle can appear if the initial offended takes offense to the offensive of the initial offense. Granted, you do not always get to choose what offends you, but when dealing with multiple layers of offense I think it is best to deal with the initial offense.
So, perhaps “categories” can be replaced by “priorities.”
Not if resolving the first layer depends on resolving the second layer first. I.e. he can’t resolve his problem because he’s being silenced when he attempts to discuss it.
The first layer problem existed before the second layer problem did. Why would the second layer have to be solved first?
Also, silencing someone is not really the same thing as being offended.
Unless you are talking about a scenario where silencing someone is the solution to the original problem? In that case the second layer really has nothing to do with offense to offense.
I feel there may be a huge misunderstanding here. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was my initial comment’s assumption that the second offense was an offense to an offense.
Because they’ve become interconnected.
I’m viewing PUA discussions as part of the solution to SilasBerta’s problem. Imposing a ban on such discussions hinders SilasBerta, which is why he’s offended. Basically, a ban on PUA discussions is effectively a ban on part of the solution to SilasBerta’s problem.
Now, I’m not saying that Alicorn and SilasBerta are equally justified in their requests. But both need to be evaluated as valid concerns.
Hardly. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other places on the ’net to get information, free or paid, and if he lives in or near a major metropolitan area there’s probably a “lair” he can join and the occasional professionally taught workshop or bootcamp.
Unless you’re looking for specifically rationalist-friendly information, this isn’t really the place to get it. It’s only on-topic here to the extent it’s relevant to various sorts of bias and akrasia issues. For example, the PUAs’ “3 Seconds Rule” is relevant to akrasia, and I almost brought it up in reply to the “It’s all in your head land” article, except that I’m really NOT wanting to start new PUA-related threads.
Well, a ban is a hindrance to the extent that a rationalist community could develop more rigorous and testable theories, and incidentally, they will probably weed out all of the misogynist and objectificationist (is there such a word?) stuff.
You must be new here. ;-)
All kidding aside, this community could develop plenty of rigorous and testable theories. It’s just incredibly doubtful that any of them would actually work in practice, for almost any definition of “work”, unless they were developed by people who already had practical experience.
In particular, this community is inflicted with massive “should” bias—i.e. confusing “ought” and “is”, while vehemently insisting that things that do work, shouldn’t, don’t work, should, and coming up with ludicrous explanations for both sets of falsehoods.
See, for example, the recent complaints about “marketing”; e.g. deriding breaking cryonics cost down to $1/day. There’s a reason marketers do that… and it’s because marketers have forgotten more than most people posting on this site have ever known about overcoming akrasia.
Because, if a marketer can’t overcome somebody’s akrasia enough to get them to shell out actual money, the marketer doesn’t get paid.
That’s why I group PUA and marketing under the same heading, of Arts That Work. When they’re too far wrong, the marketers don’t get paid and the PUAs don’t get laid, so there’s an inherent control over how far they can stray from the truth. This control does not apply so well to general works of self-help, or to armchair ev-psych theorizing. I actually learned far more about akrasia and motivation from marketers and PUAs than I ever did from self-help books or science papers.
(Btw, the scientific principle behind using per diem breakdown is incredibly relevant to any sort of personal change project, and it involves a statistical rule discovered by Prochaska, Norcross et al regarding the precise number of standard deviations in a person’s change of evaluation regarding the pros and cons of a decision that will make them shift from “contemplating” to “acting”… a rule that holds constant across a dozen different kinds of changes, such as quitting smoking, starting an exercise program, etc. Per diem breakdowns are just one of several tools that the adept marketer uses to prompt an individual to make this evaluation shift, though I don’t know of any marketers who’ve made the connection between this statistical rule and the relevant practices. They do know, however, that persuasion must occur in the same sequence that the Prochaska rule says it does.)
If this is the case, than he is not offended by Alicorn’s offense. He is offended by a ban on such discussions. Which makes sense and has nothing to do with the layers I was talking about.
Like I said, I think there is misunderstanding of my original comment. To reword this:
As this:
Might help.
Have I claimed to be “personally injured” anywhere? I don’t think I have, but if I said something that sounds like that, I’d like to know.
What I’m implying is that both you and SilasBerta are having a negative emotional reaction. Can you say your reaction is justified while his is not?
I don’t think I can answer that question unbiasedly, because SilasBarta routinely makes me very frustrated.
Said much more diplomatically than mine. Good job.
I think you changed the example a little bit there (http://lesswrong.com/lw/13k/missing_the_trees_for_the_forest/yrh). What you wrote there I don’t have any problem with. Whether it’s a charitable reading of Dworkin or a straw(wo)man, I have no knowledge. Since I don’t feel like reading up on her, I am inclined to grant you that interpretation for the sake of conversation.
That’s fine, but packing that whole line of thinking into the act of omitting half of a quotation is bound to give people the wrong impression. If you think “all sex is rape” is consistent, on the whole, with someone’s work, you can just say that’s what you think. Hell, I don’t know anything about her in particular and personally find radical feminist thought to be weird and wrong, so I wouldn’t even argue with you.
But don’t do half a job quoting someone; if in your original comment on the subject contained the words “and I know immediately afterwards she disclaims the obvious interpretation of this sentence, but that is clearly an out-of-character statement for her and probably does not reflect her true view, given all the other things she’s said,” then we would not be having this conversation.
I certainly don’t support what you’re reacting to. If it’s not already clear, I find radical feminism quite hypocritical, assuming I understand it. I suppose my few comments on this have given the impression that I’m on Alicorn’s “side”, whatever that means, but I’m actually pretty neutral on the whole thing, I can understand both positions. My comments have admittedly been on the “moderate feminist” side, but only because it’s been less well represented (quantity, not quality, my subjective opinion) and I thought I could contribute something positive.
Okay, fair point. I thought it was obvious why the next sentence should carry so little weight, but even so, I should have explained that that was the reason for the exclusion.
ETA: I’ve added a clarifier to the initial comment.
Thank you; I have to admit I’m pleasantly surprised. There aren’t many blogs you can see a comment like this on.
We’re generally fairly reasonable folks around here, even while having a ridiculous multiple-day politically-charged feud.
Brief intro:
Radical feminism, simply put, is isomorphic to radical marxism. Where the marxist would interpret virtually anything as an instance of “class warfare”, the radical feminist would interpret virtually anything as an instance of “oppression by the patriarchy”. The “patriarchy”, in this sense, is that complex web of behaviors and assumptions that, on the whole, radical feminists believe was constructed by men to keep women down.
There is a charitable interpretation of the “patriarchy” that suggests that it was not created specifically by men, and it is not intended to keep women down, but then “patriarchy” is a bad name. Radical feminist works usually make more internal sense if you just read it as though “patriarchy” referred to an illuminati-like organization with immense power hell-bent on subjugating women using insidious methods like making the Washington Monument look phallic.
While there are still quite a few radical feminists alive and kicking, their views are largely discredited and a serious thinker should be embarrassed to use their arguments.
The Wikipedia article does a decent job of summarizing different movements in feminism. (For reference, when I put on my “feminist” hat, I’m a “liberal feminist”. Note that “Liberal” here is used in the same sense as in “Classical Liberal” or “Liberty”)
Were your parents killed by angry feminists when you were a child?
This has been happening all your life? I’ve actively studied radical feminism and I don’t feel like I’ve been exposed to such a dire situation. And radical feminism lost credibility and practically died over decade ago now (I believe most scholars of feminism place it around when Carlin Romano penned his now-famous “Suppose I raped Catherine MacKinnon” review). Really, give it up man, war’s over, Dworkin’s been dead for many years and nobody important takes her work seriously.
EDIT: removed undiplomatic remark.
You do realize that your beef is essentially with Gandhian non-violent resistance? Whether you care to admit it or not, you are on the controlling side of an unequal power relationship. It is grossly unethical—not to mention clearly unfeasible—to demand that people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint.
ETA: Why does this comment bother so many of you? I realize that political arguments are generally unwelcome here, but this should not be used to excuse comments as misguided as Silas’s.
I think that equating hurt feelings to victimization and dehumanization is to trivialize actual violence… and in addition, it rewards playing “more victimized than thou” games.
Wha?
I most certainly do not believe that “people who are consistently victimized and dehumanized by the current power structure should accept it without question or complaint”.
What I believe is that the feminist ideology I referred to is:
1) Misdirected. To the extent that there is oppression, it is by very high status men, not men as such. As Scott Adams put it, the Vice President doesn’t ask for my advise when deciding who to bomb.
2) Wrong. As revealed by their actions, women in general do not want men to act per (most of) the dictates of feminism, even if, as is unlikely, feminists do.
I’m not going to bring this topic in the justification for these positions, but suffice to say, my beliefs are nothing remotely like what you have attributed to me, and I have said nothing that gives you such a basis for believing so.
I think bogus’s comment is evidence to the contrary. The proper response when you’re misunderstood is not to be incredulous that you were misunderstood and leave it at that.
Your position is basically that kitten torture is a good idea because of your religious beliefs. I find that offensive.
… Yeah, wanna rethink that one?
The rule you gave is a heuristic, or a prior, not inviolate physical law. And when the person stating their interpretation can’t even say what post gave him that idea, and given the numerous posts I gave before that clarified my position in directions nowhere near what bogus attributed to me, incredulity is justified.
And I did not “leave it at that”, I stated what my position was and left it to bogus to show the counterevidence.
And once again, Silas’s conclusion turns out to be correct. Here we see bogus shortly thereafter drift off into the land of “unfalsifiable all-encompassing conspiracy theories”.
I think I’ve done my rationalist due diligence here :-)
What counterevidence is needed? I realize that this most likely doesn’t apply to you, but when someone complains about being “told that they are an oppressor”, this is prima facie evidence that they were in fact behaving oppressively in some way—such as by taking part in a potentially oppressive power structure. If they were completely uninvolved, they would probably dismiss the original complaints as absurd. Sticks and stones will break my bones, and all that.
That’s not an “unfalsifiable all-encompassing conspiracy theory”, it’s simple historical and sociological fact. Rules of “proper behavior” when relating to women are hundreds of years old, and their overall character has consistently been paternalistic and mildly depersonalizing. The worst aspects of them have since been corrected, but we still face a lot of cultural inertia.
Was this a response to me? If so, I’m not sure where you’re getting this. For the most part, I don’t have “religious beliefs”, and I certainly haven’t advocated kitten torture. Do you have a citation?
WHOOSH
I was trying to show you what it’s like to have a position attributed to you with no substantiation that looks like it comes right out of the blue. You know, like what happened to me here
This is the part where you’re supposed to realize the absurdity of your original response to my reaction, which you gave here.
Is it all starting to fall into place now?
You made a claim that seemed unsubstantiated; you seemed confused about my position, and so I responded by asking for clarification and a citation, as is appropriate for rational discourse. I’m not sure what was supposed to “fall into place”. My response does not seem absurd.
You were supposed to see that response as a satire of your response to my reaction to bogus. At least, after I specifically explained the satire, you were supposed to see it. Want to give it another go, and check out the links this time?
Is that too much to ask of you these days?
I had checked out the links in the first place. I even read those comments in the first place, as they were posted. You responded to bogus as though he could not possibly have any reason for thinking the way he did (explicitly saying that you’d said nothing that gives him a basis for believing what he does).
I pointed out that it’s likely that you did say something that gave him a basis for his beliefs.
I think my main issue with your comments here is that you seem to not be interested in being considerate of where the people disagreeing with you are coming from. Rather than asking for or offering clarification, you’re rude and dismissive.
I don’t think there’s much to be gained from attempting to discuss this further.
You responded to me as though I could not possibly have any reason for thinking the way I did about your kitten torture (explicitly saying that you’d said nothing that gives me a basis for believing what I do).
I could, just the same, point out that my very post attributing that position to you, was evidence that you said something that gave me that idea.
I think my main issue with your comments here is that you seem to not be interested in being considerate of where the people disagreeing with you are coming from. Rather than asking for or offering clarification, you’re rude and dismissive.
I don’t think there’s much to be gained from attempting to discuss this further.
Tu quoque: Exposing inconsistency, since before the fall of Rome! (tm)
N.B. Tu quoque, while perhaps a useful rhetorical technique, is a logical fallacy.
What I said was:
I did not suggest that you didn’t have any reason to think that. Rather, I noted that I don’t know what your reasons are (“I’m not sure where you’re getting this”), I asked where you got that idea (“Do you have a citation”), and I did not explicitly say that I’d said nothing that would give you that idea, or at least those words don’t seem to appear in the comment you cited. (or were you using a different meaning of “explicit”?)
Yes, you could. Did you think I’d disagree with that? But I’m not sure why anyone would need such evidence—I’d already accepted that you might have a reason to think so and asked precisely what that might have been.
No, it’s the name of an argument that can be a logical fallacy. Pointing out how one’s own arguments invalidate one’s own position when consistently applied—which is what I was doing—is not a fallacy. But same diff, right?
Right, because clearly it would have been unfair to think I had no reason to believe you like torturing kittens. The fact that I made it up whole cloth doesn’t matter. No, I said it with a straight face, and so I’m entitled to serious examination of my claims, regardless of the complete lack of mention of kittens or religious devotion in any of your posts.
If you want, I can generate a bunch more of these accusations from my random slander generator, and you can spend all night poring over my serious concerns that you might … how’s this, like to flash schoolchildren? Hey, I said it with a straight face, it must be strong enough evidence to warrant your undivided attention.
There is no hope for this one.
Your snarky comments are unappreciated.
Basically, you have a choice here. You can engage in rational discourse where you take the other person’s arguments charitably and respond reasonably and as politely as possible. I will continue to attempt this. So far, I haven’t encountered anyone making baseless accusations about me all night, and if I did, I’d probably just downvote and ignore. Neither have you, and I’d hope you’d do the same, as a responsible member of this community.
I’d hoped to convince you that being just a little considerate was worth the almost no time it takes, so that the level of discourse on this community would not suffer.
I’m sorry, but I have never seen you do this; I’ve repeatedly had to correct extremely uncharitable interpretations of my position from you.
...Except the time I accused you of kitten torture. Oh right, that wasn’t baseless, because the existence of an accusation proves a basis (???)
Yes, you’ve shown a general pattern of “Bad commenter! No karma for you!” as an alternative to actual articulation of where others’ claims are in error.
(That’s not something to be proud of.)
By your own standard, you suggest I should have just downvote comments like bogus’s rather than even telling him what my position actually is. This is fruitful for discussion, why?
Sadly, my ethics prevent me from modding comments in exchanges I’m directly involved in. It’s probably a vestige of listening to advice like Alicorn’s, and it puts me at a disadvantage against people who view the downmod as equivalent to an argument.
Know anyone like that?
Let’s give it a rest, please.
Honestly, this notion never occurred to me. I interpret downvotes (upvotes) as a “I would like to see fewer (more) comments like this,” and feel free to vote on exchanges I’m involved in, trying to base my votes on quality of discussion and argument, rather than strictly whether I agree or not. Do you think your standard should be a community norm (even if it can’t be enforced)?
You’re kidding. It never occurred to you that you might not be neutral enough to accurately moderate during an argument you’re personally involved in?
What’s your “working theory” for why the site prevents upvoting your own comment, “even though” you could just register with a different name and upvote as a sockpuppet?
Great, but why don’t you think your involvement compromises your ability to do so neutrally, especially when it’s a heated discussion? (Btw, on Slashdot, you’re prevented from moderating on any discussion where you’ve posted anywhere, which is probably where I got that ethic, plus previous EY rationality writings about when one’s neutrality is compromised.)
Yes. I assumed people already had my level of restraint. But, like with following feminist advice, “no good deed goes unpunished”. I have a much lower karma level, and others a higher karma level, because I followed obvious rules about watching one’s own bias.
I humbly recommend you cancel any votes for or against me in exchanges you’ve been involved in.
I guess I’m just retarded???
Done.
I agree that drive-by mass downvoting out of personal animosity is bad, and it is of course unjust that you have apparently been subjected to it. But again, you should also consider that a nontrivial proportion of your recent karma loss has been because people legitimately find many of your recent comments to be of low-quality. For example, your tone is oftentimes rather hostile and condescending (“Can you do it? No? Then you don’t have a point,” “Like any bad lie, your position has forced you into defending ever-more-absurd positions,” “Know anyone like that?”, “There is no hope for this one,” “Is that too much to ask of you these days?” &c.), and maybe you can see why some people might think this worthy of a downvote?
No, you’re not retarded, but you could provide a better explanation for why it never occurred to you that you have a bias during a flamewar.
Holy ----! Since I last came here an hour or so ago, my karma shot up about a hundred points.
I don’t know how much of that was you, but I very much appreciate that you are taking my suggestion.
I accounted for this already. There were severe downmods for recent comments, accumulating over the past 18 hours. Then, in a much shorter period, I lost ~30 more, mainly on much older comments.
I accept that my tone has gotten worse recently. But please, take a second look at that exchange. You refuted one analogy with another one which revealed you didn’t understand the topic. To untangle your misunderstanding required me to restate the context of the conversation, and then spell out the mapping in your proposed analogy, basically, doing all the intellectual heavy lifting for you.
I derived what your analogy needed to contain for it to be relevant to my point. But, if you could present such evidence, or even realize its applicability, you would have already done so.
And so I had to spend far disproportionate time responding to you, compared to your investment in the discussion. Yes, I could have said something instead, like, “Is there a quote from a men’s magazine that meets the criteria? I don’t think there is, which is what you need to make your point applicable.” But please understand my frustration there.
“Do all the intellectual heavy lifting for you” could potentially sound antagonistic. Someone can be wrong (and you can explain why you think so) without you need to bring in meta-discussion about their intellectual skills.
Since I agree with you more often than not, I often find myself wishing that your substantive points were made in a different tone.
Thanks for your advice. I didn’t mean it that way, but I see how it can be read as a direct attack on someone’s intelligence. I’ll avoid such usages in the future.
There’s no further explanation! It really didn’t occur to me that that was a reason to not vote! And it’s still not obvious to me that not-voting is unambiguously the right ethical standard. Of course I agree that it’s unethical to downvote a comment solely because you don’t like the conclusion or you don’t like the commenter—but that remains true whether or not you’re personally involved in the conversation. So as long as we’re going to talk about unenforceable personal standards of ethics, maybe the standard (which had been my policy) of “always and everywhere try to vote solely based on quality of discussion” is better than “don’t vote when I’m part of the discussion.”
Not very much. During the recent madness, I had downvoted you I think maybe three or four times, and upvoted you I think once, all of which have now been cancelled.
Sure. Notice that I wrote that a “a nontrivial proportion of your recent karma loss” (emphasis added) could be legitimate; I didn’t mean to suggest that all of it was.
If you don’t think it’s worth your time to correct (what seems to you to be) someone’s egregious misapprehension, then don’t bother to do so. If you think a comment is poorly argued—maybe just downvote it?
The problem with your alternative is that being in an argument alters your judgment of what counts as a good quality post. In additional to the usual “Politics is the mind-killer” truism, remember that we run on corrupted hardware.
You may think that it’s better to go by: “Don’t do X unless, all things considered, it would work for the greater good.” But even if you want to follow that rule, you actually do a better job following it if you just go by “Don’t do X”, as long as X is easily abused and self-serving. That’s the point of the post in the link.
And that’s why I think it just doesn’t work to say, “Oh, I’m modding down this comment because it’s an obectively bad comment, not because I’m in a heated flamewar with them.”
See above for why I don’t downvote in arguments I’m currently involved in.
But even setting that policy aside for a minute, you got several upmods, which gave the false impression your post was high quality, when it wasn’t, and used a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly. Changing you from 3 to 2 wouldn’t have done anything; people would still think you had a good point, since they probably didn’t know the entire context that led up to the point about Cosmo.
And since the point about Cosmo was strong, and used to highlight a critical hole in Alicorn’s point, I couldn’t ignore it either.
Now, as long as we’re suggesting ways it could have gone better, how about this: why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about before you get involved? In this case, that would mean presenting the evidence your comparison requires: a case of a male-oriented magazine that uses language that the men here consider beyond the pale in its offensiveness.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example in mind.
I have replied in the other thread.
Please correct me if I’m misreading you here. You don’t trust yourself to assess whether a comment deserves a downvote, because humans are subject to an array of egocentric biases, and yet somehow you do trust yourself to assess that the other person has no idea of what she’s talking about, even though humans are subject to an array of egocentric biases?
You might want to consider doing this the other way, extending interpretive charity but not karmic charity. In fact, I hereby urge you to vote however you want to on whatever comments you want to. After all, a few undeserved downvotes are of little importance, whereas, say, continuous swipes at other people’s intellectual competence and integrity (e.g., “Yeah, wanna rethink that one?” “This is the part where you’re supposed to realize the absurdity of your original response to my reaction,” “I heard you make an all-too-convenient claim about what you were, like, totally about to do,” “Now for the hard part!” “You’re kidding. It never occured to you [...]?” “a deceptively simple comparison that you didn’t understand how to use correctly,” “doing all the intellectual heavy lifting for you,” “if you could present such evidence, or even realize its applicability, you would have already done so,” “why don’t you make sure you know what you’re talking about [...]?” “I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you still don’t have an example,” &c.) have a tendency to drag the quality of discourse down. It’s worth keeping in mind that the karma system is supposed to be a mechanism that exists in the service promoting good discussion; discussion does not exist in the service of amassing karma points. I would much rather someone abuse her voting power than constantly taunt and belittle people.
If only because the former is much easier to correct. I frequently upvote comments (including ones I disagree with) with negative scores that seem to have no obvious, objective flaws, on the assumption that they were downvoted for disagreement.
The danger here is that someone else might later upvote because they think it’s a good comment, and thus your ‘corrective’ upvote is misplaced (as if you’d come along later you’d never have made it)
I’ve actually removed upvotes for precisely that reason, when I’ve noticed it happen.
For what it’s worth, I vote in threads in which I am active. Namely, I downvote and explain my downvote or upvote and add what I hope is a useful insight.
If I feel like I am getting emotional about anything or the topic is tilting personal I usually wait until the whole thing is finished and then go back through the thread and vote on which comments I thought were best/worst. Sometimes a later clarification makes an earlier comment worth more.
I would not have honored such a request. My opinion still matters, even if you talking to me.
Note that one can both upvote and downvote comments in an exchange they’re involved in. I don’t have an explicit ethic of not voting in exchanges where I’m involved, but I’ve frequently upvoted comments that have disagreed with me and (IIRC) rarely downvoted them. I would suspect many people to be the same, and see little trouble with the practice. If you want to avoid a bias, “in exchanges where you’ve participated, only upvote comments that disagree with you (or are neutral), and only downvote comments that agree with you (or are neutral)” would sound like a better policy than an explicit ban on any voting.
While you do expect to be more biased than usual in the discussions you are involved in, in some cases the judgment is certain enough to not need this injunction.
If it’s that certain, then it will probably get enough downvotes from people not involved in the discussion.
Wow, in a short time span I just dropped by about 15 karma, distributed between ongoing and past discussions.
Real mature, that.
ETA: Okay, I went from 264 to 236 in under two hours, virtually all from downmods on old comments. This is ridiculous.
I didn’t touch the old threads but last night I did vote down an entire thread of argument between you and thomblake (voting down each of your posts). This might have been part of your conspicuous drop. Nothing against either of you but when the argument is just about what you said or didn’t say it is of little interest to anyone else here and should be taken to private messages if you want to continue. I don’t know how else to kill bad, useless arguments that clog the recent comments section except to vote every comment in them down. If people feel this is inappropriate please let me know and I won’t do it in the future.
I agree that this is an appropriate use of voting, and that the conversation was of little interest to anyone else so probably should not have been made into theater. Good job.
As a rule of thumb, I usually don’t pay much attention to comment threads that consist of two people going hammer and tongs, and the nesting depth driving the subthread off the top page for the post.
You mean this one? Yes, it was quite a waste of time trying to explain to someone why not every accusation needs to be taken seriously, and I apologize for dignifying the opposing positions.
It would be nice if the people downvoting you would state who they were and why (It’s not me). I can think of two hypotheses:
A) There’s a cabal of feminists trying to suppress your view and you in particular
B) People in general have judged your comments in these threads of less quality
A) sounds unlikely (due to the sort of people who seem to frequent this site) but I will grant that it’s possible, and B) agrees with my own subjective judgment.
If you’ve lost karma on really old posts in unrelated topics then it would seem to be reasonable to conclude that one or two people are irrationally voting you down, however...
This recent 30+ point drop is almost all from the old threads, not the recent ones. I was up to ~300, then these recent −5s on recent threads took it down to ~265. After that, I took the 30 point hit on old threads over a short period.
That’s weird. Perhaps the system could be improved; there’s currently nothing to disincentivize this behavior.
One might hope the fact that it is clearly wrong to be enough. But I suppose one might hope for a pony as well.
How old? If it’s less than a week, it might just be somebody catching up on old comments. (If it’s more than a week, that would be suspicious, of course.)
Yes, more than a week. I remember a thread where I had 8 and 4 and it went to 7 and 3.
Btw, 231 now. That’s over a 30 drop, probably due mostly to one person. Quite some “catching up”!
I had that happen to me a while back to the tune of 80 karma lost in under half an hour. It’s not an appropriate use of the voting system and I hope whoever is/was doing it to you stops.
I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll recite the famous Voltaire quote until I’m blue in the face in your defense.
Please. Voltaire misquote!
Only somewhat, I thought. The sentiment is identical but the misquote is catchier.
ETA: Wikiquote seems to think even that quote is apocryphal, so nevermind, I guess.
I hear tell it’s from Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who was explicitly trying to say something Voltaire would agree with.
Pfft—I’m just being silly. Besides, I only know about that one because of webcomics.
I have been driven-by several times. It sucks. Although I disagree with your stated habit of not voting and participating in the same thread, I have voted on your comments only as they’ve come up and only when I think there is a genuine issue of quality, not indiscriminately and on old comments. (I mention this because I’m probably an obvious suspect in some people’s minds.)
Maybe down-voting old comments shouldn’t affect karma. After all, the more comments you make, the more potential karma you can lose from one person going through your history. I could probably lose all of my karma just by offending the wrong person. Besides, someone changing the points of an old comment no one may ever read again from 8 to 7 is hardly improving the quality of discourse.
I disagree. The idea is that people will read the old comments again, and the score of comments gives an impression to a random passerby what the community is about.
Of note, I certainly read old comments and vote on them all the time and consider all posts open discussion.
Sure, so long as it doesn’t give the impression that that is what the community was about at that time. This community is a moving target, and ideas and opinions change. If we decide to update old comments with new votes, do we risk losing something of archival interest? If we vote up a comment that says ‘A is B’, and a year later vote up a comment that says ‘A is not B’, going back and voting down the ‘A is B’ comment gives the false impression that this community is remarkably consistent. I think I’m blowing this out of proportion, though.
I would presume that the number of people willing to systematically downvote all of a particular person’s comments is rather low. Is this a rather common problem? Or does it just show up once a few months?
Well, it’s happened before at least a few times.
I’ve had drops of 5 or 6 karma at a time as someone goes through and downvotes all my comments in a particular thread, but I think that’s the price we have to pay; by and large, the karma system here seems to work very well, and provides a very useful method of gauging posts.
Not to be a punk, but were all of those posts deserving of being downvoted? I have no qualms with downvoting posts in batches as long as those posts would have been downvoted anyway. Periodically I read older articles or read the recent posts of certain people. If I find a thread of comments I think should be up or downvoted I do so. This may hit one person with 5 or 6 votes all at once.
I don’t think that getting 30 downvotes after a particularly volatile thread is necessarily misuse of the karma system. I can see how it would happen through legitimate use. As long as each vote was made within the full context of the comment, a drop of 30 is very plausible.
It is, however, much more convenient to say that someone is picking on you than to consider that no one bothered to read your comments until now.
This being said, SilasBarta’s notes about his recent hits do not appear to follow a legitimate pattern. I am not trying to point at anyone here, least of all SilasBarta; I am just noting that cries of, “Unfair!” don’t always point to someone abusing the system.
I completely agree. I find the karma system very helpful.
As another data point here, someone seems to be doing the same thing to me, only in reverse—I just gained 20 or so karma in a short time period, and none of it apparently on recent comments. I don’t see how this could be someone trying to abuse the system, unless I have some insane stalker fan or something.
ETA: or a Tyler Durden sockpuppet.
ETA2: SoullessAutomaton’s comment seems the most plausible.
Maybe someone who knows your voting habits and and wants to annoy you by searching through your history for your worst comments, in order to put upvotes on mediocre comments that you’ll never be able to downvote?
(Tongue in cheek, obviously)
I’d say the initial comment probably was worthy of the downvote, but the rest weren’t.
Fair enough.
Never underestimate the number of people on the internet with too much free time and too little sense. I don’t think this is a problem right now, though. Of course, if it does become a problem, it’s the kind that would be hard to identify.
From a database point, it may actually be very easy to find the culprits. I do not know if there is a timestamp on voting, but a sudden influx of downvotes from a particular person should be relatively obvious.
Not that I think any sort of data police needs to exist right now. Even if someone did start messing with the karma system I would rather the developers keep the features coming than worry about a troll.
Eliezer has mentioned trying to get such a monitoring feature built if it becomes apparent that it is becoming a frequent problem. It’s not to that point yet, apparently.
If you’re going to interpret her charitably, then her clarification that she doesn’t mean to say that all sex is rape is relevant to understanding what she did mean. Leaving out her clarification is deceptive.
If you’re not going to interpret her charitably, then it doesn’t matter what she said, as you can twist her words into meaning whatever you’d like.
Very well. Any future comment you make about my beliefs on this topic must now include the quote, “I, Silas Barta, have the utmost respect for both men and women, and I never use language that is in any way objectifying to either.”
After all, wouldn’t it be deceptive to leave out my clarification that I have respect for women and never use obectifying language? I mean, I said it with a straight face, and everything! Don’t people deserve to hear the full story?
“It’s not the speeches you can deliver, it’s whether you can deliver on the speeches.”—paraphrase of a cheesy Hillary Clinton quote
You’re being ridiculous. Her clarification was in the very next sentence of what you quoted, and it directly contradicted what you said. It’s nearly as bad as if you said “I’m not saying that blacks are inferior to whites” and I quoted you out of context as saying “blacks are inferior to whites”.
And my point is that her disavowal (did I use too obscure of a word?) of that belief counts for nothing, when the rest of her actions say the opposite. That was the whole point of my comment about how people can say whatever they way, but that doesn’t make it true. And truth was the issue, not what someone can assert in a sheepish backpedal.
No, it’s like if I wrote book saying, “It would be much better if America didn’t have any blacks. Lynchings of blacks are, in a philosophical sense, an act of liberation.”
And then rumors went around saying that I think blanks should be lynched, and I responded to them by saying,
“Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea. Of couse, I wouldn’t advocate lynching blacks. But we have to remember the need for racial purity.”
And then someone posting on Less Wrong, that hey, SB’s views weren’t really misrepresented, because look at what he said even when defending himself, “Certainly, tossing a rope around a black person’s neck is a great idea …”
And then you vigorously protesting that, “But look at the next sentence! Doesn’t that void everything else he’s ever written?”
You’re misreading me as well. I’m no fan of Dworkin, and it’s very clear that “all sex is rape” certainly sounds like the sort of thing she’d say (I’d make the same case for MacKinnon). I pointed out that leaving out her clarification was deceptive. It was a paradigmatic example of taking a quote out of context. Perhaps my wording was a bit strong in this comment when I said:
But it is very clear that you were not even attempting to read her charitably, nor give other people the chance to do so, by leaving out relevant context.