Well, first, I’ll admit up front that I logged off and metaphorically hid for a day after posting this, so I would not be tempted to engage in a pointless argument in the comments.
That’s your problem right there. If you want people to respect you, don’t hide, fight. Attempting to apologize or beg does not earn you respect from women or SJ-goons like gjm or Comrade ChristianKl, it earns you mockery and signals that you’re someone it’s safe to beat up on.
The boy’s mistake in the story was begging rather than being assertive. And your problem here is that your immediate reaction to extremely unfair criticism by people who can be extremely charitably described as mind-killed is to apologize and attempt to say “no really I didn’t mean it”.
Attempting to apologize or beg does not earn you respect from women or SJ
You seem to pressupose a quite peculiar definition of respect. Also, you’re generalizing too much about what’s inside women’s heads.
The boy’s mistake in the story was begging rather than being assertive.
The conditions in the story were rigged so that he had no other course of action open except begging. That’s one of the 5,429,236 reasons why it fails as a metaphor.
That’s your problem right there. If you want people to respect you, don’t hide, fight.
The whole reason he wrote a parable instead of a fact-based article was hidding. Hidding was part of my critcism from the start.
And your problem here is that your immediate reaction to extremely unfair criticism by people who can be extremely charitably described as mind-killed is to apologize and attempt to say “no really I didn’t mean it”.
I don’t think saying “no really I didn’t mean it” and appologizing are the same thing. Sincerely apologizing does earn respect. Falsely pretending that you didn’t actually wanted to say what you said doesn’t earn respect.
It’s again a symptom of not wanting to communicate openly and sincerely and that’s one of the core criticisms I had from the beginning.
As far as me being SJ In the days where I actually did run a forum where I had moderator power I took the side of the right of an African to speak of homosexuality as a crime that’s legalized in some countries. I don’t have a problem with people sincerely arguing for positions that aren’t PC.
More in a “how dare you try to hide from me” kind of sense.
As far as me being SJ In the days where I actually did run a forum where I had moderator power I took the side of the right of an African to speak of homosexuality as a crime that’s legalized in some countries.
Would you have done that for someone who didn’t belong to a “more protected” category?
I don’t have a problem with people sincerely arguing for positions that aren’t PC.
I find that incredibly hard to believe given your behavior elsewhere in the comments but especially in this thread.
More in a “how dare you try to hide from me” kind of sense.
No, you get that sense because you mislabel me as SJW when I’m not.
I find that incredibly hard to believe given your behavior elsewhere in the comments but especially in this thread.
I guess that says more about your model of the world than about me. Or that the topic is heavily mind-killing.
If you read through my LW history you will find my quite civilly discussing the issue of pedophila with a person who wants to legalize it.
On Omnilibrium he have been called right-wing because of how I see the perfomance of the post-apartheid government of South Africa.
My position is that everybody should be allowed to argue any position but not that everybody should be allowed to argue any position in any way they like. The more extreme a position the more important it is that the person focus on focusing on having a fact based discussion.
No, you get that sense because you mislabel me as SJW when I’m not.
An SJW is someone who engages in certain types of behavior, and your “nice forum you got here, would be a shame if someone called it sexist”-style blackmail here was definitely SJW-behavior. You don’t get to act like a SJW and then complain when someone calls you out on it.
If you read through my LW history you will find my quite civilly discussing the issue of pedophila with a person who wants to legalize it.
So you’re willing to discuss extreme positions to your left.
The more extreme a position the more important it is that the person focus on focusing on having a fact based discussion.
The more extreme position the more trouble one can get into for attempting fact based discussion. There is in fact a long tradition of dissidents writing stories set in the past or in sci-fi worlds when it’s not safe to object directly to what’s going on. Granted, EphemeralNight is overestimating the current danger and the amount of hiding required.
Also, what do you consider an “extreme” position for purposes of this rule? Can you cite any instance where you applied this to any position that was to “extreme” left-wing?
“nice forum you got here, would be a shame if someone called it sexist”
That’s mistakes my perspective. You are likely either Eugine trying to circumvent his ban or somone without a real stake in this forum. I do care about this forum and also regularly attend LW meetups.
I know that there are woman who don’t participate on the LW forum but who do participate on meetups. Reinventing LW2.0 means shifting LW into being more welcoming to those people.
Even before reading Richard posts I predicted the post to drive away people and my prediction was accurate. Far from being mind-killed I made an accurate prediction. Most people who leave LW also don’t post publically about the reasons why the leave.
I have little to gain by calling LW sexist.
An SJW is someone who engages in certain types of behavior, and your “nice forum you got here, would be a shame if someone called it sexist”-style blackmail here was definitely SJW-behavior. You don’t get to act like a SJW and then complain when someone calls you out on it.
As a result of mind-kill you confuse the issue of what’s true from the social level of complaining and winning arguments.
As far as truth goes it’s irrational to think that a the actions in a single case determine who someone happens to be.
The more extreme position the more trouble one can get into for attempting fact based discussion.
That’s basically if you don’t know how to setup the debate. Part of my upbringing as far as having political conversations was a debating seminar by people from the Cambridge debating society who considered it important that and position can be defended.
EphemeralNight and you hide behind anonymity, and can therefore speak without much personal consequences anyway. My own real world identity is linked to this account. Richard’s also is.
It’s not good for LW to move to a point where only people who want to hide their idenity want to participate.
Also, what do you consider an “extreme” position for purposes of this rule? Can you cite any instance where you applied this to any position that was to “extreme” left-wing?
Most of the time people don’t try to make points on LW by telling stories. Can you point to a single parable that someone posted on LW that you think I should have opposed based on my standards but didn’t?
I know that there are woman who don’t participate on the LW forum but who do participate on meetups. Reinventing LW2.0 means shifting LW into being more welcoming to those people.
Would they contribute anything besides starting witch hunts. If the very existence of a single post at −19 is enough to drive them away, things don’t look good in their favor.
As far as truth goes it’s irrational to think that a the actions in a single case determine who someone happens to be.
“I only murdered someone once, I’m not a murderer.”
That’s your problem right there. If you want people to respect you, don’t hide, fight. Attempting to apologize or beg does not earn you respect from women or SJ-goons like gjm or Comrade ChristianKl, it earns you mockery and signals that you’re someone it’s safe to beat up on.
The boy’s mistake in the story was begging rather than being assertive. And your problem here is that your immediate reaction to extremely unfair criticism by people who can be extremely charitably described as mind-killed is to apologize and attempt to say “no really I didn’t mean it”.
You seem to pressupose a quite peculiar definition of respect. Also, you’re generalizing too much about what’s inside women’s heads.
The conditions in the story were rigged so that he had no other course of action open except begging. That’s one of the 5,429,236 reasons why it fails as a metaphor.
The whole reason he wrote a parable instead of a fact-based article was hidding. Hidding was part of my critcism from the start.
I don’t think saying “no really I didn’t mean it” and appologizing are the same thing. Sincerely apologizing does earn respect. Falsely pretending that you didn’t actually wanted to say what you said doesn’t earn respect. It’s again a symptom of not wanting to communicate openly and sincerely and that’s one of the core criticisms I had from the beginning.
As far as me being SJ In the days where I actually did run a forum where I had moderator power I took the side of the right of an African to speak of homosexuality as a crime that’s legalized in some countries. I don’t have a problem with people sincerely arguing for positions that aren’t PC.
More in a “how dare you try to hide from me” kind of sense.
Would you have done that for someone who didn’t belong to a “more protected” category?
I find that incredibly hard to believe given your behavior elsewhere in the comments but especially in this thread.
No, you get that sense because you mislabel me as SJW when I’m not.
I guess that says more about your model of the world than about me. Or that the topic is heavily mind-killing.
If you read through my LW history you will find my quite civilly discussing the issue of pedophila with a person who wants to legalize it.
On Omnilibrium he have been called right-wing because of how I see the perfomance of the post-apartheid government of South Africa.
My position is that everybody should be allowed to argue any position but not that everybody should be allowed to argue any position in any way they like. The more extreme a position the more important it is that the person focus on focusing on having a fact based discussion.
An SJW is someone who engages in certain types of behavior, and your “nice forum you got here, would be a shame if someone called it sexist”-style blackmail here was definitely SJW-behavior. You don’t get to act like a SJW and then complain when someone calls you out on it.
So you’re willing to discuss extreme positions to your left.
The more extreme position the more trouble one can get into for attempting fact based discussion. There is in fact a long tradition of dissidents writing stories set in the past or in sci-fi worlds when it’s not safe to object directly to what’s going on. Granted, EphemeralNight is overestimating the current danger and the amount of hiding required.
Also, what do you consider an “extreme” position for purposes of this rule? Can you cite any instance where you applied this to any position that was to “extreme” left-wing?
That’s mistakes my perspective. You are likely either Eugine trying to circumvent his ban or somone without a real stake in this forum. I do care about this forum and also regularly attend LW meetups.
I know that there are woman who don’t participate on the LW forum but who do participate on meetups. Reinventing LW2.0 means shifting LW into being more welcoming to those people.
Even before reading Richard posts I predicted the post to drive away people and my prediction was accurate. Far from being mind-killed I made an accurate prediction. Most people who leave LW also don’t post publically about the reasons why the leave.
I have little to gain by calling LW sexist.
As a result of mind-kill you confuse the issue of what’s true from the social level of complaining and winning arguments.
As far as truth goes it’s irrational to think that a the actions in a single case determine who someone happens to be.
That’s basically if you don’t know how to setup the debate. Part of my upbringing as far as having political conversations was a debating seminar by people from the Cambridge debating society who considered it important that and position can be defended.
EphemeralNight and you hide behind anonymity, and can therefore speak without much personal consequences anyway. My own real world identity is linked to this account. Richard’s also is.
It’s not good for LW to move to a point where only people who want to hide their idenity want to participate.
Most of the time people don’t try to make points on LW by telling stories. Can you point to a single parable that someone posted on LW that you think I should have opposed based on my standards but didn’t?
Would they contribute anything besides starting witch hunts. If the very existence of a single post at −19 is enough to drive them away, things don’t look good in their favor.
“I only murdered someone once, I’m not a murderer.”