Let’s just observe that your “fun” is policing someone’s popular memes, on an entirely different social media site that’s not LessWrong, because you find them cringe.
And what was all the more “fun” for you was to psychoanalyze and essentially pressure her to cut back with cancel culture tactics.
I say that because if you wanted to question the merits of the content and it being net-positive, wouldn’t you just post the memes themselves?
Trying to police a seperate site on LessWrong, and doing so by going after the poster for “fun” on the basis of divergent personal taste, seems not only like the “engagement baiting” you’re accusing her of but also legitimately scummy ethics.
If you and the LW forum holds itself to higher standards, I struggle to understand why it’s acceptable to have posts that expressly attempts to tarnish someone’s reputation largely because you think it’s fun to say that their jokes aren’t humorous.
expressly attempts to tarnish someone’s reputation
I don’t think that’s accurate. The OP clearly states:
One upfront caveat. I am speaking about “Kat Woods” the public figure, not the person. If you read something here and think, “That’s not a true/nice statement about Kat Woods”, you should know that I would instead like you to think “That’s not a true/nice statement about the public persona Kat Woods, the real human with complex goals who I’m sure is actually really cool if I ever met her, appears to be cultivating.”
What does it mean to tarnish the reputation of someone as a “public figure” and not as a person?
He’s a dick politician (but a great husband)?
Consumers are only aware of whatever is publicly known to them, so their reputation is entirely depenedent of what one thinks about the “public figure.”
Herego, his actions expressly are meant to tarnish her reputation.
I don’t think you’re being charitable. There is an important difference between a personal attack and criticism of the project someone is engaging in. My reading of the OP is that it’s the latter, while I understand you to be accusing the OP of the former.
He’s a dick politician (but a great husband)?
“Dick” is a term used for personal attacks.
If you said “He’s a bad politician; He’s a good husband and good man, and I know he’s trying to do good, but his policies are causing harm to the world” so we really shouldn’t support Pro-America Joe (or whatever—assume Pro-America is a cause we support and we just don’t agree with the way Joe goes about trying to promote America) then I’d say yes, that’s how we criticize Pro-America Joe without attacking him as a person.
This wasn’t criticism of just the project (e.g. her content), it was criticism of the person because of the content they make, because let’s be real a personal attack is much more damaging. And yes, it was meant to tarnish her reputation because, well, did you not read the headline of the post?
Sure, consumers may form their opinion of a person, their reputation, based on a composite knowledge of their professional or personal behavior, so the post’s caveat factors in one small way to the equation. But what drove reputation change here much more significantly is browsing name calling Kat in the headline, and orienting the entire post as a complaint towards her.
You think I’m being uncharitable? I think you’re being so charitable towards one passing caveat you’re ignoring the obvious goal here: to bully someone to get in line on another forum, largely because she doesn’t like the vibes and it’s fun to do. And that’s why I think this is so inappropriate for this forum.
And yes, it was meant to tarnish her reputation because, well, did you not read the headline of the post?
[...]
But what drove reputation change here much more significantly is browsing name calling Kat in the headline
The headline I see is “Everywhere I Look, I See Kat Woods”. What name is this calling Kat? Am I missing something?
And why do you think that you can infer that the OP’s intent was to tarnish Kat’s peraonal reputation from that headline? That doesn’t make any sense.
Anyway, I don’t know the OP, but I’m confident in saying that the information here is not sufficient to conclude she was making a personal attack.
If she said that was her intent, I’d change my mind. Or if she said something that was unambiguously a personal attack I’d change my mind, but at the moment I see no reason not to read the post as well meaning innocent criticism.
And that’s why I think this is so inappropriate for this forum.
I also don’t think it’s very appropriate for this forum (largely because the complaint is not about Kat’s posting stlye on LessWrong). I didn’t downvote it because it seemed like it had already received a harsh enough reaction, but I didn’t upvote it either.
I’m confident in saying that the information here is not sufficient to conclude she was making a personal attack.
A wild claim to make about a post that explictly centers around shaming Kat for her posting style predominantly because it’s “cringe”, by putting her name in the headline (what I meant by name-calling) and orienting the entire argument around her. If it wasn’t meant to tarnish her reputation, why not instead make the post about just her issues with the disagreeable content?
If she said that was her intent, I’d change my mind. Or if she said something that was unambiguously a personal attack I’d change my mind, but at the moment I see no reason not to read the post as well meaning innocent criticism...I also don’t think it’s very appropriate for this forum.
If intent was determined solely by someone’s words than I’d agree with you that her caveat made in passing indicates well-meaningness, but the standard you’ve set for determining intent is as naive as believing when someone says “I like you as a person” before they knock you out with a punch that they do not intend to cause you harm.
Even by her own words this is not “innocent criticism”, because she states that she dislikes the “deluge of posts” and her “futile downvotes accomplish nothing, so instead I am writing this blog post” which indicate she elevated her response to bring about behavior change, not by using the methods native to Reddit, but rather by leaning on those friendly to her position in the group to shame Kat into compliance.
Before you misquote me as analogizing this post to a punch, let me be clear that I’m merely observing you are clinging so minutely to small signals that are arguably misdirections, that you’re missing the extent to which browsing’s post is more than “inappropriate” as you acknowledge, because as I said it amounts to bullying someone to get in line on another forum, because it’s fun to do. Why don’t you hold yourself to a higher standard?
by putting her name in the headline (what I meant by name-calling)
Gotcha, that’s fair.
If it wasn’t meant to tarnish her reputation, why not instead make the post about just her issues with the disagreeable content?
I can think of multiple possible reasons. E.g. If OP sees a pattern of several bad or problematic posts, it can make sense to go above the object-level criticisms of those posts and talk about the meta-level questions.
but the standard you’ve set for determining intent is as naive as
Maybe, but in my view accusing someone of making personal attacks is a serious thing, so I’d rather be cautious, have a high bar of evidence, and take an “innocent until proven guilty” approach. Maybe I’ll be too charitable in some cases and fail to condemn someone for making a personal attack, but that’s worth it to avoid making the opposite mistake: accusing someone of making a personal attack who was doing no such thing.
because it’s fun to do
That stated fun motivation did bother me. Obviously given that people feel the post is attacking Kat personally making the post for fun isn’t a good enough reason. However, I do also see the post as raising legitmate questions about whether the sort of content that Kat produces and promotes a lot of is actually helping to raise the quality of discourse on EA and AI safety, etc, so it’s clearly not just a post for fun. The OP seemed to be fustrated and venting when writing the post, resulting in it having an unnecessarily harsh tone. But I don’t think this makes it amount to bullying.
Why don’t you hold yourself to a higher standard?
I try to. I guess we just disagree about which kind of mistake (described above) is worse. In the face of uncertainty, I think it’s better to caution on the side of not mistakenly accusing someone of bullying and engaging in a personal attack than on the side of mistakenly being too charitable and failing to call out someone who actually said something mean (especially when there are already a lot of other people in the comments like you doing that).
After she elevates Kat’s name to the headline; uses the entire post to insult her writing; draws on ageist tropes and perjoratives like “cringe” to make her case; explicitly chooses to share the message not with the writing’s intended audience but rather a specific in-group who shares a distaste for Reddit’s lower-brow content; doing so in an effort to rile up pressure to change her behavior on the other site; an all the more potent strike considering the context that Kat is already a well-known figure who presumably cares about her standing among LW/EA communities… you don’t believe this is bullying because Browsing dropped a passing caveat that Kat might be nice in personal relations and that her object-level issue was largely that the content checks notes “feels bad for my brain” like the equivalent of eating cheetos.
Huh?
Here’s the problem with your view. You’re so reluctant to “accuse” someone of a “personal attack” or “bullying” that when it happens, you’re lost trying to determine where the behavior lies in gray thresholds of the definition that you ignore the misbehavior in plain sight. That lacks common sense. If she didn’t want this to be a “personal attack”, she could have made many different choices along the way, which she obviously did not, the most prominent being posting on Reddit rather than here and not putting her name in the headline, on top of what you already pointed out was “unnecessarily harsh tone” and what I will deem shallow and uncharitable motivations like being “grumpy” about the vibes and mounting this attack for “fun”, a far more viscious kind of engagement bait than the memes she criticized.
I’m going to withdraw from this comment thread since I don’t think my further participation is a good use of time/energy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and sorry we didn’t come to agreement.
When we got drill down into the crux of disagreement you walk away because it’s not a good use of time/energy. Of course you’re welcome to do that, but unfortunate.
Come on, William. “But they said their criticism of this person’s reputation wasn’t personal” is not good enough. It’s like calling to “no take backs” or something.
Thanks for the feedback, Holly. I really don’t want to accuse the OP of making a personal attack if OP’s intent was to not do that, and the reality is that I’m uncertain and can see a clear possibility that OP has no ill will toward Kat personally, so I’m not going to take the risk by making the accusation. Maybe my being on the autism spectrum is making me oblivious or something, in which case sorry I’m not able to see things as you seem them, but this is how I’m viewing the situation.
Let’s just observe that your “fun” is policing someone’s popular memes, on an entirely different social media site that’s not LessWrong, because you find them cringe.
And what was all the more “fun” for you was to psychoanalyze and essentially pressure her to cut back with cancel culture tactics.
I say that because if you wanted to question the merits of the content and it being net-positive, wouldn’t you just post the memes themselves?
Trying to police a seperate site on LessWrong, and doing so by going after the poster for “fun” on the basis of divergent personal taste, seems not only like the “engagement baiting” you’re accusing her of but also legitimately scummy ethics.
If you and the LW forum holds itself to higher standards, I struggle to understand why it’s acceptable to have posts that expressly attempts to tarnish someone’s reputation largely because you think it’s fun to say that their jokes aren’t humorous.
I don’t think that’s accurate. The OP clearly states:
What does it mean to tarnish the reputation of someone as a “public figure” and not as a person?
He’s a dick politician (but a great husband)?
Consumers are only aware of whatever is publicly known to them, so their reputation is entirely depenedent of what one thinks about the “public figure.”
Herego, his actions expressly are meant to tarnish her reputation.
I don’t think you’re being charitable. There is an important difference between a personal attack and criticism of the project someone is engaging in. My reading of the OP is that it’s the latter, while I understand you to be accusing the OP of the former.
“Dick” is a term used for personal attacks.
If you said “He’s a bad politician; He’s a good husband and good man, and I know he’s trying to do good, but his policies are causing harm to the world” so we really shouldn’t support Pro-America Joe (or whatever—assume Pro-America is a cause we support and we just don’t agree with the way Joe goes about trying to promote America) then I’d say yes, that’s how we criticize Pro-America Joe without attacking him as a person.
This wasn’t criticism of just the project (e.g. her content), it was criticism of the person because of the content they make, because let’s be real a personal attack is much more damaging. And yes, it was meant to tarnish her reputation because, well, did you not read the headline of the post?
Sure, consumers may form their opinion of a person, their reputation, based on a composite knowledge of their professional or personal behavior, so the post’s caveat factors in one small way to the equation. But what drove reputation change here much more significantly is browsing name calling Kat in the headline, and orienting the entire post as a complaint towards her.
You think I’m being uncharitable? I think you’re being so charitable towards one passing caveat you’re ignoring the obvious goal here: to bully someone to get in line on another forum, largely because she doesn’t like the vibes and it’s fun to do. And that’s why I think this is so inappropriate for this forum.
The headline I see is “Everywhere I Look, I See Kat Woods”. What name is this calling Kat? Am I missing something?
And why do you think that you can infer that the OP’s intent was to tarnish Kat’s peraonal reputation from that headline? That doesn’t make any sense.
Anyway, I don’t know the OP, but I’m confident in saying that the information here is not sufficient to conclude she was making a personal attack.
If she said that was her intent, I’d change my mind. Or if she said something that was unambiguously a personal attack I’d change my mind, but at the moment I see no reason not to read the post as well meaning innocent criticism.
I also don’t think it’s very appropriate for this forum (largely because the complaint is not about Kat’s posting stlye on LessWrong). I didn’t downvote it because it seemed like it had already received a harsh enough reaction, but I didn’t upvote it either.
A wild claim to make about a post that explictly centers around shaming Kat for her posting style predominantly because it’s “cringe”, by putting her name in the headline (what I meant by name-calling) and orienting the entire argument around her. If it wasn’t meant to tarnish her reputation, why not instead make the post about just her issues with the disagreeable content?
If intent was determined solely by someone’s words than I’d agree with you that her caveat made in passing indicates well-meaningness, but the standard you’ve set for determining intent is as naive as believing when someone says “I like you as a person” before they knock you out with a punch that they do not intend to cause you harm.
Even by her own words this is not “innocent criticism”, because she states that she dislikes the “deluge of posts” and her “futile downvotes accomplish nothing, so instead I am writing this blog post” which indicate she elevated her response to bring about behavior change, not by using the methods native to Reddit, but rather by leaning on those friendly to her position in the group to shame Kat into compliance.
Before you misquote me as analogizing this post to a punch, let me be clear that I’m merely observing you are clinging so minutely to small signals that are arguably misdirections, that you’re missing the extent to which browsing’s post is more than “inappropriate” as you acknowledge, because as I said it amounts to bullying someone to get in line on another forum, because it’s fun to do. Why don’t you hold yourself to a higher standard?
Gotcha, that’s fair.
I can think of multiple possible reasons. E.g. If OP sees a pattern of several bad or problematic posts, it can make sense to go above the object-level criticisms of those posts and talk about the meta-level questions.
Maybe, but in my view accusing someone of making personal attacks is a serious thing, so I’d rather be cautious, have a high bar of evidence, and take an “innocent until proven guilty” approach. Maybe I’ll be too charitable in some cases and fail to condemn someone for making a personal attack, but that’s worth it to avoid making the opposite mistake: accusing someone of making a personal attack who was doing no such thing.
That stated fun motivation did bother me. Obviously given that people feel the post is attacking Kat personally making the post for fun isn’t a good enough reason. However, I do also see the post as raising legitmate questions about whether the sort of content that Kat produces and promotes a lot of is actually helping to raise the quality of discourse on EA and AI safety, etc, so it’s clearly not just a post for fun. The OP seemed to be fustrated and venting when writing the post, resulting in it having an unnecessarily harsh tone. But I don’t think this makes it amount to bullying.
I try to. I guess we just disagree about which kind of mistake (described above) is worse. In the face of uncertainty, I think it’s better to caution on the side of not mistakenly accusing someone of bullying and engaging in a personal attack than on the side of mistakenly being too charitable and failing to call out someone who actually said something mean (especially when there are already a lot of other people in the comments like you doing that).
Let me get this straight.
After she elevates Kat’s name to the headline; uses the entire post to insult her writing; draws on ageist tropes and perjoratives like “cringe” to make her case; explicitly chooses to share the message not with the writing’s intended audience but rather a specific in-group who shares a distaste for Reddit’s lower-brow content; doing so in an effort to rile up pressure to change her behavior on the other site; an all the more potent strike considering the context that Kat is already a well-known figure who presumably cares about her standing among LW/EA communities… you don’t believe this is bullying because Browsing dropped a passing caveat that Kat might be nice in personal relations and that her object-level issue was largely that the content checks notes “feels bad for my brain” like the equivalent of eating cheetos.
Huh?
Here’s the problem with your view. You’re so reluctant to “accuse” someone of a “personal attack” or “bullying” that when it happens, you’re lost trying to determine where the behavior lies in gray thresholds of the definition that you ignore the misbehavior in plain sight. That lacks common sense. If she didn’t want this to be a “personal attack”, she could have made many different choices along the way, which she obviously did not, the most prominent being posting on Reddit rather than here and not putting her name in the headline, on top of what you already pointed out was “unnecessarily harsh tone” and what I will deem shallow and uncharitable motivations like being “grumpy” about the vibes and mounting this attack for “fun”, a far more viscious kind of engagement bait than the memes she criticized.
I’m going to withdraw from this comment thread since I don’t think my further participation is a good use of time/energy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and sorry we didn’t come to agreement.
When we got drill down into the crux of disagreement you walk away because it’s not a good use of time/energy. Of course you’re welcome to do that, but unfortunate.
OP is a woman not a man.
Come on, William. “But they said their criticism of this person’s reputation wasn’t personal” is not good enough. It’s like calling to “no take backs” or something.
Thanks for the feedback, Holly. I really don’t want to accuse the OP of making a personal attack if OP’s intent was to not do that, and the reality is that I’m uncertain and can see a clear possibility that OP has no ill will toward Kat personally, so I’m not going to take the risk by making the accusation. Maybe my being on the autism spectrum is making me oblivious or something, in which case sorry I’m not able to see things as you seem them, but this is how I’m viewing the situation.