This is getting a bit tedious, but I don’t think that was what Eliezer’s comment said; if it was, then it simply misdescribed my own comment. I wasn’t “quibbling about the site name”; I was—to repeat myself once more—noting the inconsistency between the purpose of the site and the practice of some of its members. The site could have any other name and my comment would still stand, mutatis mutandis.
And you went and conflated ethics, which you were talking about, with epistemics, which the site is mostly about, both of which “wrong” incidentally applies to in everyday speech. Which happens to be the sort of thing people are especially twitchy about here.
This is getting a bit tedious, but I don’t think that was what Eliezer’s comment said; if it was, then it simply misdescribed my own comment. I wasn’t “quibbling about the site name”; I was—to repeat myself once more—noting the inconsistency between the purpose of the site and the practice of some of its members. The site could have any other name and my comment would still stand, mutatis mutandis.
And you went and conflated ethics, which you were talking about, with epistemics, which the site is mostly about, both of which “wrong” incidentally applies to in everyday speech. Which happens to be the sort of thing people are especially twitchy about here.
I’m sorry, but I did no such thing. My comment could have been restated as follows:
See what I said in reply to wedrifid for further clarification.
I’d still downvote you for making a controversial and inflammatory statement in a way that presumes it’s obvious without providing any evidence.