I find it rather disheartening that my comment received five downvotes in less than an hour. Perhaps it was badly received because it came across as rude to many people. If so, let me be clear that I didn’t mean to criticize LW as such, but instead to point out that even a community built around the goal of overcoming bias—and composed of members unusually smart and truth-oriented—can be quite blatantly biased towards certain classes of beings. Given that even very honest and able people have exhibited similar biases in the past (men against women; slave owners against slaves), one would expect lesswrongers not to dismiss such criticisms so quickly.
I would appreciate it if those who still believe that my comment is worthy of downvoting could add a brief comment explaining why this is so. Thanks.
If you wish to raise the moral considerations of eating meat as a topic, then do so (a) directly, (b) with a minimum of hostile social signals, and (c) in a new post. The impression I get from your comment is that it was optimized to maximize perceived hostility. It is also off-topic.
Rather than engaging in a merits-based discussion of the various claims you make about my post, I propose to assess those claims by means of an analogy. Suppose that a community relevantly similar to LW existed in the US two-hundred years ago, and that one of its members announced a meeting in which slaves would be in various ways exploited to benefit participants. Suppose further that in discussing this announcement someone made a brief critical comment noting the tension between the stated purpose and the actual practice of this imagined community. Suppose finally that this comment was met with much hostility from members of that community. Do you think a reply analogous to yours would be a proper justification of that hostile reaction?
Suppose that a community relevantly similar to LW existed in the US two-hundred years ago, and that one of its members announced a meeting in which slaves would be in various ways exploited to benefit participants.
No, no. If you want to make this comparison, the laws of narrative causality mean you have to set it in Berlin in 1938.
Do you think a reply analogous to yours would be a proper justification of that hostile reaction?
Yes, it would. In your analogy, your comment would have hindered the goal of promoting emancipation, not helped it. If you wish to change people’s minds, there are social rules which you must observe, and being on the right side of an argument does not excuse failing to follow them.
I disagree: much social progress was hindered precisely by observance of such social rules. It also seems to me that you and those who agree with your comment would not be so quick to condemn the social critic in my analogy if it had not been presented in the context of the present argument. It’s like those who are prepared to say that they would eat human babies and cognitively disabled people only because they would otherwise be forced to admit that their case for eating meat lacks consistency.
I disagree: much social progress was hindered precisely by observance of such social rules.
You have to make at least a little bit of an effort before you can play the help-help-I’m-being-repressed card. Write your arguments as an essay, polish it, and post it at the top level. You shouldn’t expect a serious debate on the Christmas party logistics thread.
I never attempted to play the “help-help-I’m-being-repressed card”, since I’m manifestly not being repressed. (It’s unclear to me why you actually thought that I was trying to play that card.) Nor did I “expect a serious debate” about the arguments against eating meat on this thread. As I have said already, I was instead simply noting an instance of how even members of a community organized around the goal of overcoming bias can themselves be blatantly biased against certain other beings.
As I have said already, I was instead simply noting an instance of how even members of a community organized around the goal of overcoming bias can themselves be blatantly biased against certain other beings.
I don’t think you’ve established that this is bias. First, clarify what you mean by “bias” — you seem to be using it more in the colloquial sense of prejudice, while here it’s used in a different and more technical sense. Do you claim that this is an instance of a particular cognitive bias, or that it is an unjustified prejudice (which, surely, should also be overcome) based on something like unconsidered anthropocentrism? If the latter, you need to specifically justify the implication that most non-vegetarians here haven’t actually thought about the morality of eating meat, and are just going by a default lack of concern for different-looking entities. (Do you think that many LWers would eat Yoda?) I suspect that many among us (as in Kevin’s comment below) have considered the question much more deeply than John Q. Omnivore has.
Or if you simply want to argue that their moral reasoning is faulty or based on false factual beliefs, just say that, and say how; that’s much more useful then a blanket accusation of “bias”. (In general, it’s bad argument to tell people that they’re being “biased” or “irrational”, particularly on a site where everyone is well-acquainted with the more obvious and/or well-documented forms of systematic irrationality. It’s too fully general. If someone is wrong, stay at the object level and just tell them what they’re wrong about and what you think you know that you think they don’t know.)
You’re underestimating how seriously many of us have taken our decisions to be meat eaters. All the animal suffering is not something I take that lightly.
Indeed. I prefer organic free range as much for its effect on my own health as for the ethical issues of how animals should be treated.
Some meat eaters (unfortunately I’m not one of them, as I can’t always afford free range) are responsible for less animal cruelty than many vegetarians. The state of typical egg farms is horrible.
This is really off-topic, but I just wanted to say I agree with your comments about eggs. Indeed, according to Alan Dawrst’s estimates, consumption of eggs produces much more suffering than does consumption of any animal product other than fish.
That said, the main objection I have against consuming such products is not the suffering caused by consumption, but the promotion of the meme that non-human animal suffering doesn’t matter, or matters less, than human suffering does. I believe this is also Alan’s position.
I would appreciate it if those who still believe that my comment is worthy of downvoting could add a brief comment explaining why this is so. Thanks.
God forbid someone should dare offer to go to the effort of making and providing free food at their expense without it being the food you personally prefer.
I would suggest you got downvoted for several reasons, breathtaking rudeness definitely amongst them.
David, let’s assume for the sake of argument that my comment was rude. Do you think rudeness as such is a valid reason for downvoting? Personally, when giving or withdrawing karma here at LW I try to focus on the relevance, importance, clarity and truth-content of comments and posts, disregarding how ‘nice’ or ‘rude’ the user appears to be. In any case, I try not to be rude in discussion because I know that even those who share my policy generally need to make an extra effort to overcome the initial dislike they experience in the presence of a rude commenter.
I object to your characterization of my reaction as based on meat not being the food I “personally prefer”. Meat is rather the food that I believe is wrong to eat.
Do you think rudeness as such is a valid reason for downvoting?
Yes. Enough by itself? Well, as you point out several things go into whether or not a comment gets voted up or down. But rudeness is definitely in the “down” column. Add in one or two more ingredients, and you get −7.
Don’t you think there is a risk that attaching relevance to rudeness in this way provides an easy excuse for dismissing comments that might be worth taking seriously? Especially when the comments in question challenge established social practices that many people are unwilling to change and who as such are naturally predisposed to see rudeness even in comments that are not actually rude or weren’t intended to be.
Don’t you think there is a risk that attaching relevance to rudeness in this way provides an easy excuse for dismissing comments that might be worth taking seriously?
Of course I do. But I think that risk is made minimal by requiring several factors- rudeness is strike 1, and making it up to strike 3 to get called out requires two other infractions. That means that some arguments will be out that wouldn’t be if we didn’t measure rudeness, but the marginal comments are two-strike arguments that are rude; we’re looking at pretty low value, here.
weren’t intended to be.
This is actually the strongest argument for downvoting things for being rude- instead of letting people continue to unknowingly behaving in a way that reflects poorly on them, you make it explicit to them that their behavior is winning them no friends. They have an opportunity to practice losing gracefully, rewrite their argument to be superior, and clear up their thinking with regards to the issue.
instead of letting people continue to unknowingly behaving in a way that reflects poorly on them
I think this whole discussion about rudeness keeps oscillating between the claim that rude behavior is socially inappropriate and that such behavior is objectionable from the point of view of truth-seeking. The quote above is a case in point: you say that the “strongest argument” for downvoting rude comments is that it “reflects poorly on” commenters. But rudeness reflects poorly on someone socially and not (except in an indirect sort of way) epistemically. I see no reason for thinking that a community of people devoted to refining the art of human rationality should assume the task of punishing others for saying things that would reflect poorly on them as social creatures.
I also note (again) that there is sometimes a tension between doing what is socially appropriate and what is epistemically appropriate. Thus, there is a social norm against questioning people’s motives in the context of a debate or discussion; but quite often there is sufficient evidence that such motives are questionable, and in many of these cases questioning these motives is what concern for truth would require. I think a community of truth-seekers should make a special effort to keep these two different sense of propriety apart, in order to prevent social norms from interfering with the quest for truth. After all, such norms were selected for their tendency to promote social harmony rather than human knowledge.
The quote above is a case in point: you say that the “strongest argument” for downvoting rude comments is that it “reflects poorly on” commenters.
I apologize if I was unclear: upvotes and downvotes exist to signal to two different groups: the authors of comments, and the readers of comments. To the first group they have pedagogical value (“ok, I should be posting X and should refrain from posting Y”) and to the second group they have predictive value (“hmm, karma too low? I don’t think I’ll waste my time”).
And so my argument is that if someone posts statement Z and doesn’t realize that statement Z is rude, then a downvote (preferably coupled with a polite “try being less rude” comment) is the best thing for them pedagogically, since it helps them improve their ability to articulate themself. If they know they’re being rude but think it helps make their point, that’s one thing- but if it’s from ignorance, even ignorance of social customs, then that’s something we generally try to fix around here.
And, in case you’re wondering, this is the sort of thing that happens to everyone. If one of EY’s comments approaches the issue the wrong way, it will get voted down.
I see no reason for thinking that a community of people devoted to refining the art of human rationality should assume the task of punishing others for saying things that would reflect poorly on them as social creatures.
Rational agents should WIN. Winning often involves social interaction (especially if your goal is to persuade others).
I also note (again) that there is sometimes a tension between doing what is socially appropriate and what is epistemically appropriate.
This looks like a false dilemma. It’s not “do I point out their hypocrisy or not?”- there are two separate questions, “do I raise this issue?” and “how do I raise it?”. You seem to be under the impression that the only way to raise this issue is rudely, and it’s better to be rude than not raise the issue. I strongly disagree; there are very many ways you could approach the issue with a little patience and get much farther than you did. For example, you could say something like “I’m curious about your justification for eating meat; would you mind telling me it?” or “Is vegetarianism an issue that’s come up here before? There seems to be a lot about moral reasoning and that seems as appropriate a question as any.”
Tact is a rather valuable skill, both at convincing others of their errors and leaving yourself in a social position where you can admit your errors. Both are valuable tools when it comes to refining human rationality.
I find it rather disheartening that my comment received five downvotes in less than an hour. Perhaps it was badly received because it came across as rude to many people. If so, let me be clear that I didn’t mean to criticize LW as such, but instead to point out that even a community built around the goal of overcoming bias—and composed of members unusually smart and truth-oriented—can be quite blatantly biased towards certain classes of beings. Given that even very honest and able people have exhibited similar biases in the past (men against women; slave owners against slaves), one would expect lesswrongers not to dismiss such criticisms so quickly.
I would appreciate it if those who still believe that my comment is worthy of downvoting could add a brief comment explaining why this is so. Thanks.
If you wish to raise the moral considerations of eating meat as a topic, then do so (a) directly, (b) with a minimum of hostile social signals, and (c) in a new post. The impression I get from your comment is that it was optimized to maximize perceived hostility. It is also off-topic.
Rather than engaging in a merits-based discussion of the various claims you make about my post, I propose to assess those claims by means of an analogy. Suppose that a community relevantly similar to LW existed in the US two-hundred years ago, and that one of its members announced a meeting in which slaves would be in various ways exploited to benefit participants. Suppose further that in discussing this announcement someone made a brief critical comment noting the tension between the stated purpose and the actual practice of this imagined community. Suppose finally that this comment was met with much hostility from members of that community. Do you think a reply analogous to yours would be a proper justification of that hostile reaction?
No, no. If you want to make this comparison, the laws of narrative causality mean you have to set it in Berlin in 1938.
Yes, it would. In your analogy, your comment would have hindered the goal of promoting emancipation, not helped it. If you wish to change people’s minds, there are social rules which you must observe, and being on the right side of an argument does not excuse failing to follow them.
I disagree: much social progress was hindered precisely by observance of such social rules. It also seems to me that you and those who agree with your comment would not be so quick to condemn the social critic in my analogy if it had not been presented in the context of the present argument. It’s like those who are prepared to say that they would eat human babies and cognitively disabled people only because they would otherwise be forced to admit that their case for eating meat lacks consistency.
You have to make at least a little bit of an effort before you can play the help-help-I’m-being-repressed card. Write your arguments as an essay, polish it, and post it at the top level. You shouldn’t expect a serious debate on the Christmas party logistics thread.
I never attempted to play the “help-help-I’m-being-repressed card”, since I’m manifestly not being repressed. (It’s unclear to me why you actually thought that I was trying to play that card.) Nor did I “expect a serious debate” about the arguments against eating meat on this thread. As I have said already, I was instead simply noting an instance of how even members of a community organized around the goal of overcoming bias can themselves be blatantly biased against certain other beings.
I don’t think you’ve established that this is bias. First, clarify what you mean by “bias” — you seem to be using it more in the colloquial sense of prejudice, while here it’s used in a different and more technical sense. Do you claim that this is an instance of a particular cognitive bias, or that it is an unjustified prejudice (which, surely, should also be overcome) based on something like unconsidered anthropocentrism? If the latter, you need to specifically justify the implication that most non-vegetarians here haven’t actually thought about the morality of eating meat, and are just going by a default lack of concern for different-looking entities. (Do you think that many LWers would eat Yoda?) I suspect that many among us (as in Kevin’s comment below) have considered the question much more deeply than John Q. Omnivore has.
Or if you simply want to argue that their moral reasoning is faulty or based on false factual beliefs, just say that, and say how; that’s much more useful then a blanket accusation of “bias”. (In general, it’s bad argument to tell people that they’re being “biased” or “irrational”, particularly on a site where everyone is well-acquainted with the more obvious and/or well-documented forms of systematic irrationality. It’s too fully general. If someone is wrong, stay at the object level and just tell them what they’re wrong about and what you think you know that you think they don’t know.)
You’re underestimating how seriously many of us have taken our decisions to be meat eaters. All the animal suffering is not something I take that lightly.
I for one seriously like bacon. Mmm. Crispy, salty, fatty deliciousness.
Me too, but I am a vegetarian anyhow, since the age of 13. I’ll get back to bacon once in vitro meat is becoming commercially obtainable.
Indeed. I prefer organic free range as much for its effect on my own health as for the ethical issues of how animals should be treated.
Some meat eaters (unfortunately I’m not one of them, as I can’t always afford free range) are responsible for less animal cruelty than many vegetarians. The state of typical egg farms is horrible.
This is really off-topic, but I just wanted to say I agree with your comments about eggs. Indeed, according to Alan Dawrst’s estimates, consumption of eggs produces much more suffering than does consumption of any animal product other than fish.
That said, the main objection I have against consuming such products is not the suffering caused by consumption, but the promotion of the meme that non-human animal suffering doesn’t matter, or matters less, than human suffering does. I believe this is also Alan’s position.
God forbid someone should dare offer to go to the effort of making and providing free food at their expense without it being the food you personally prefer.
I would suggest you got downvoted for several reasons, breathtaking rudeness definitely amongst them.
David, let’s assume for the sake of argument that my comment was rude. Do you think rudeness as such is a valid reason for downvoting? Personally, when giving or withdrawing karma here at LW I try to focus on the relevance, importance, clarity and truth-content of comments and posts, disregarding how ‘nice’ or ‘rude’ the user appears to be. In any case, I try not to be rude in discussion because I know that even those who share my policy generally need to make an extra effort to overcome the initial dislike they experience in the presence of a rude commenter.
I object to your characterization of my reaction as based on meat not being the food I “personally prefer”. Meat is rather the food that I believe is wrong to eat.
Yes. Enough by itself? Well, as you point out several things go into whether or not a comment gets voted up or down. But rudeness is definitely in the “down” column. Add in one or two more ingredients, and you get −7.
Don’t you think there is a risk that attaching relevance to rudeness in this way provides an easy excuse for dismissing comments that might be worth taking seriously? Especially when the comments in question challenge established social practices that many people are unwilling to change and who as such are naturally predisposed to see rudeness even in comments that are not actually rude or weren’t intended to be.
Of course I do. But I think that risk is made minimal by requiring several factors- rudeness is strike 1, and making it up to strike 3 to get called out requires two other infractions. That means that some arguments will be out that wouldn’t be if we didn’t measure rudeness, but the marginal comments are two-strike arguments that are rude; we’re looking at pretty low value, here.
This is actually the strongest argument for downvoting things for being rude- instead of letting people continue to unknowingly behaving in a way that reflects poorly on them, you make it explicit to them that their behavior is winning them no friends. They have an opportunity to practice losing gracefully, rewrite their argument to be superior, and clear up their thinking with regards to the issue.
I think this whole discussion about rudeness keeps oscillating between the claim that rude behavior is socially inappropriate and that such behavior is objectionable from the point of view of truth-seeking. The quote above is a case in point: you say that the “strongest argument” for downvoting rude comments is that it “reflects poorly on” commenters. But rudeness reflects poorly on someone socially and not (except in an indirect sort of way) epistemically. I see no reason for thinking that a community of people devoted to refining the art of human rationality should assume the task of punishing others for saying things that would reflect poorly on them as social creatures.
I also note (again) that there is sometimes a tension between doing what is socially appropriate and what is epistemically appropriate. Thus, there is a social norm against questioning people’s motives in the context of a debate or discussion; but quite often there is sufficient evidence that such motives are questionable, and in many of these cases questioning these motives is what concern for truth would require. I think a community of truth-seekers should make a special effort to keep these two different sense of propriety apart, in order to prevent social norms from interfering with the quest for truth. After all, such norms were selected for their tendency to promote social harmony rather than human knowledge.
I apologize if I was unclear: upvotes and downvotes exist to signal to two different groups: the authors of comments, and the readers of comments. To the first group they have pedagogical value (“ok, I should be posting X and should refrain from posting Y”) and to the second group they have predictive value (“hmm, karma too low? I don’t think I’ll waste my time”).
And so my argument is that if someone posts statement Z and doesn’t realize that statement Z is rude, then a downvote (preferably coupled with a polite “try being less rude” comment) is the best thing for them pedagogically, since it helps them improve their ability to articulate themself. If they know they’re being rude but think it helps make their point, that’s one thing- but if it’s from ignorance, even ignorance of social customs, then that’s something we generally try to fix around here.
And, in case you’re wondering, this is the sort of thing that happens to everyone. If one of EY’s comments approaches the issue the wrong way, it will get voted down.
Rational agents should WIN. Winning often involves social interaction (especially if your goal is to persuade others).
This looks like a false dilemma. It’s not “do I point out their hypocrisy or not?”- there are two separate questions, “do I raise this issue?” and “how do I raise it?”. You seem to be under the impression that the only way to raise this issue is rudely, and it’s better to be rude than not raise the issue. I strongly disagree; there are very many ways you could approach the issue with a little patience and get much farther than you did. For example, you could say something like “I’m curious about your justification for eating meat; would you mind telling me it?” or “Is vegetarianism an issue that’s come up here before? There seems to be a lot about moral reasoning and that seems as appropriate a question as any.”
Tact is a rather valuable skill, both at convincing others of their errors and leaving yourself in a social position where you can admit your errors. Both are valuable tools when it comes to refining human rationality.