It isn’t. Eliezer knows about the effects (p~1), approves of them (p=0.9), because they’re part of his “serious ain’t solemn” shtick (p=0.9), which he has carefully thought about and concluded is a good idea (p~1), and is in fact a good idea (p=0.6).
Well, where I come from, being uncompromisingly “iconoclastic and contrarian” doesn’t convince people, it makes them look at you like at a teenager with a grudge. Paying your words the same amount of attention this image implies.
And until LW authors learn the skills of persuasion, learn how to be the kind of person that people will occasionally listen to, LW is going to remain, at best, a fringe community.
What would your ideal public image of LW be, if you’re implying that “at best, a fringe community” is so much less preferable to it? Most of us who care about the issue probably think that LW must broaden its reach somewhat, yet not waste time and effort catering to—ahem—the less genetically fortunate, those who’d have trouble even considering the possibilities of radical change, and all the nice but unsalvageably deluded (yes, the T-word) people.
So do you fall somewhere between those, or in fact have a case for the latter? Not a loaded question; I’m purely curious.
Humble and correct denotation, consciously Hollywood-arrogant and lampshaded connotation, nothing wrong with that—or are you telling me we aren’t allowed to get some fun from that damn meta discourse? Anyway, do you have a stance?
It isn’t. Eliezer knows about the effects (p~1), approves of them (p=0.9), because they’re part of his “serious ain’t solemn” shtick (p=0.9), which he has carefully thought about and concluded is a good idea (p~1), and is in fact a good idea (p=0.6).
Well, where I come from, being uncompromisingly “iconoclastic and contrarian” doesn’t convince people, it makes them look at you like at a teenager with a grudge. Paying your words the same amount of attention this image implies.
And until LW authors learn the skills of persuasion, learn how to be the kind of person that people will occasionally listen to, LW is going to remain, at best, a fringe community.
What would your ideal public image of LW be, if you’re implying that “at best, a fringe community” is so much less preferable to it? Most of us who care about the issue probably think that LW must broaden its reach somewhat, yet not waste time and effort catering to—ahem—the less genetically fortunate, those who’d have trouble even considering the possibilities of radical change, and all the nice but unsalvageably deluded (yes, the T-word) people.
So do you fall somewhere between those, or in fact have a case for the latter? Not a loaded question; I’m purely curious.
“Less generically fortunate”?
That’s, like, not arrogant at all.
Humble and correct denotation, consciously Hollywood-arrogant and lampshaded connotation, nothing wrong with that—or are you telling me we aren’t allowed to get some fun from that damn meta discourse? Anyway, do you have a stance?