Thanks for the feedback on your original downvote.
I was not offering “feedback on [my] original downvote”; there was no original downvote; as I already said, I did not downvote your earlier post. (Nor this one, nor any of your comments.)
You said you downvoted the original post because “It presents as new something that’s not new at all”.
No, I neither downvoted that post nor said I had. But I do think that that post presents as new something that isn’t new, and I stand by that.
My original point was that we don’t need to artificially limit ourselves to non-philosophical, universe-centric thinking
Sure. But when you post something saying “Isn’t it a mistake to think X?”, the implication even if you don’t say it explicitly is that people generally think X. No one is posting articles saying “Isn’t it a mistake to think that the sky is green?”.
You describe my writing as “complaining,” and my discussion of risks as “complaints.” These words have an obvious negative connotation. [...] Why do you choose to use demeaning words to describe my concerns, but not the concerns of others?
I didn’t particularly intend any negative connotation. (If you wanted to describe some of the things I said about your post as “complaints”, that would be pretty reasonable too.) The term certainly isn’t “demeaning”. Out of curiosity I put my own username and “complaint” into the LW search bar, and the first thing it found (which admittedly is from years back) is a comment of mine in which I describe myself as “whining” and having a “complaint”. Other search results also show me calling things “complaints” without any derogatory meaning. I think your, er, complaint here is just off-base; the demeaning you think you see is not real.
My original post had only one sentence about reddit.
Two, I think (the one after the one that explicitly contains the word “reddit” is surely continuing the thought of the previous one), out of only 12 sentences in the whole post, and the Reddit physics moderators are one of only two specific groups of people you call out as having a “theocratic” attitude. I don’t think my description of what you wrote is unreasonable.
Again, the word “annoyed”, is like the word “complained”.
Again, I didn’t intend it derogatorily. I get annoyed all the time. There is nothing wrong with getting annoyed (other than the fact that it’s an unpleasant experience).
someone asked if Brian Greene’s perspectives were “BS” and there was a pile-on of people criticizing Brian’s ideas.
It sounds as if you’re talking about this reddit discussion, … except that I had a look at it and I didn’t see a pile-on of people criticizing Brian Greene’s ideas.
I don’t think moderators are “evil”
The grandiose language and capital letters were intended as a signal that I wasn’t being terribly serious, and was neither stating my own opinion nor making actual claims about yours. I’m sorry if that came across as dismissive. (Also, I think that when you begin by calling something “theocratic” you lose the right to complain that others are presenting your position as extremist.) Anyway, the point is that discussions like e.g. the “is what Greene and Kaku say BS?” one do happen, despite being somewhat philosophical and speculative, which to my mind indicates that whatever bias you might perceive it doesn’t prevent such discussions taking place.
your choice of wording seems a little passive-aggressive when you say “I am not claiming that you are a crank; I’m not in a position to judge. But the evidence we have available at present doesn’t give us much grounds for confidence that you’re not.”
I’m not sure how I could have expressed that in a way you would find less “passive-aggressive”. Since the point I am making is “one reason why your post wasn’t well received may have been that it gives the impression that you might be a crank”, there’s no way to say it without using the term “crank” or something broadly equivalent. I can’t say “but of course it’s obvious you aren’t in fact a crank” because I’ve got no way to tell whether you are or not, because you’ve said very little about your opinions and ideas. I appreciate that it isn’t pleasant to be told “what you wrote sounds like you might be a crank”, but I think that is actually one of the reasons why you got downvoted.
DM me if you’d like a free PDF copy of one of the books [...] then you can have more evidence [...] I’m not going to engage further
It doesn’t seem like there’s much point in my having more evidence, if you’ve decided there isn’t value in further engagement.
I was not offering “feedback on [my] original downvote”; there was no original downvote; as I already said, I did not downvote your earlier post. (Nor this one, nor any of your comments.)
No, I neither downvoted that post nor said I had. But I do think that that post presents as new something that isn’t new, and I stand by that.
Sure. But when you post something saying “Isn’t it a mistake to think X?”, the implication even if you don’t say it explicitly is that people generally think X. No one is posting articles saying “Isn’t it a mistake to think that the sky is green?”.
I didn’t particularly intend any negative connotation. (If you wanted to describe some of the things I said about your post as “complaints”, that would be pretty reasonable too.) The term certainly isn’t “demeaning”. Out of curiosity I put my own username and “complaint” into the LW search bar, and the first thing it found (which admittedly is from years back) is a comment of mine in which I describe myself as “whining” and having a “complaint”. Other search results also show me calling things “complaints” without any derogatory meaning. I think your, er, complaint here is just off-base; the demeaning you think you see is not real.
Two, I think (the one after the one that explicitly contains the word “reddit” is surely continuing the thought of the previous one), out of only 12 sentences in the whole post, and the Reddit physics moderators are one of only two specific groups of people you call out as having a “theocratic” attitude. I don’t think my description of what you wrote is unreasonable.
Again, I didn’t intend it derogatorily. I get annoyed all the time. There is nothing wrong with getting annoyed (other than the fact that it’s an unpleasant experience).
It sounds as if you’re talking about this reddit discussion, … except that I had a look at it and I didn’t see a pile-on of people criticizing Brian Greene’s ideas.
The grandiose language and capital letters were intended as a signal that I wasn’t being terribly serious, and was neither stating my own opinion nor making actual claims about yours. I’m sorry if that came across as dismissive. (Also, I think that when you begin by calling something “theocratic” you lose the right to complain that others are presenting your position as extremist.) Anyway, the point is that discussions like e.g. the “is what Greene and Kaku say BS?” one do happen, despite being somewhat philosophical and speculative, which to my mind indicates that whatever bias you might perceive it doesn’t prevent such discussions taking place.
I’m not sure how I could have expressed that in a way you would find less “passive-aggressive”. Since the point I am making is “one reason why your post wasn’t well received may have been that it gives the impression that you might be a crank”, there’s no way to say it without using the term “crank” or something broadly equivalent. I can’t say “but of course it’s obvious you aren’t in fact a crank” because I’ve got no way to tell whether you are or not, because you’ve said very little about your opinions and ideas. I appreciate that it isn’t pleasant to be told “what you wrote sounds like you might be a crank”, but I think that is actually one of the reasons why you got downvoted.
It doesn’t seem like there’s much point in my having more evidence, if you’ve decided there isn’t value in further engagement.