note: topic text was originally different, and included a recently-elected president’s name; which would’ve ranked on google for related-keywords. Below is unedited comment, asking for that name not to be included
Since “Downvoting temporarily disabled”, I would like to express a very, very strong disapproval of this topic being discussed on lesswrong. Rationale:
1, Politics is the mindkiller
2, It attracts the sort of people who would like to discuss these sorts of things, at the expense of those (including myself), who do not; specifically, by ranking for relevant keywords on Google (with lesswrong’s reputation)
3, There exists almost the entirety of the rest of the Internet to discuss these issues, including rationality-related groups, forums, and mailing lists
4, For a specific case study, we just had a CFAR-alumni discussion group blown up by a topic similar to this, which got 100s++ replies, with no measurable convergence; which strongly implies that no, actually, we do not have a collective-intelligence / social tooling to tackle these issues yet.
For this reason, I -along with all upvoters of this comment- would like to ask for an Admin intervention, specifically by either deleting this post, or modifying it to “Metrics to evaluate a president”; that is, talking about general evaluation criterias, instead of ranking for T-related keywords.
The point isn’t that I find any part objectionable. It’s that I thought it was a good comment but I would not in fact “like to ask for an Admin intervention”. (Perhaps my memory is failing, but I think that when I read it before it said that “all upvoters of this comment” wanted an admin intervention specifically to delete the post; what it says now is more reasonable, though I still would not go so far.)
As it happens, I do find it very slightly objectionable to claim that “all upvoters of this comment” want some particular thing (some people might upvote without noticing that claim, aside from anything else). I would object less to the formally-kinda-equivalent “Please upvote this comment if you would like X, and downvote it if you think X would be a good idea”, but in general I think it is better to leave upvotes and downvotes to mean approve/disapprove; if you want upvotes to be interpreted as advocacy of a particular thing, post a comment that only advocates that particular thing.
I am actually looking for criteria to evaluate any president. I only wrote Trump because it’s whom I had in mind, obviously. Can I edit my own article?
note: topic text was originally different, and included a recently-elected president’s name; which would’ve ranked on google for related-keywords. Below is unedited comment, asking for that name not to be included
Since “Downvoting temporarily disabled”, I would like to express a very, very strong disapproval of this topic being discussed on lesswrong. Rationale:
1, Politics is the mindkiller
2, It attracts the sort of people who would like to discuss these sorts of things, at the expense of those (including myself), who do not; specifically, by ranking for relevant keywords on Google (with lesswrong’s reputation)
3, There exists almost the entirety of the rest of the Internet to discuss these issues, including rationality-related groups, forums, and mailing lists
4, For a specific case study, we just had a CFAR-alumni discussion group blown up by a topic similar to this, which got 100s++ replies, with no measurable convergence; which strongly implies that no, actually, we do not have a collective-intelligence / social tooling to tackle these issues yet.
For this reason, I -along with all upvoters of this comment- would like to ask for an Admin intervention, specifically by either deleting this post, or modifying it to “Metrics to evaluate a president”; that is, talking about general evaluation criterias, instead of ranking for T-related keywords.
I started to read this comment, went to upvote it, read the last paragraph, and didn’t upvote.
Can you point at the part which you find objectionable?
The point isn’t that I find any part objectionable. It’s that I thought it was a good comment but I would not in fact “like to ask for an Admin intervention”. (Perhaps my memory is failing, but I think that when I read it before it said that “all upvoters of this comment” wanted an admin intervention specifically to delete the post; what it says now is more reasonable, though I still would not go so far.)
As it happens, I do find it very slightly objectionable to claim that “all upvoters of this comment” want some particular thing (some people might upvote without noticing that claim, aside from anything else). I would object less to the formally-kinda-equivalent “Please upvote this comment if you would like X, and downvote it if you think X would be a good idea”, but in general I think it is better to leave upvotes and downvotes to mean approve/disapprove; if you want upvotes to be interpreted as advocacy of a particular thing, post a comment that only advocates that particular thing.
Admin intervention is way too much.
I am actually looking for criteria to evaluate any president. I only wrote Trump because it’s whom I had in mind, obviously. Can I edit my own article?
Yes. The pen icon underneath your post will allow you to do that.
Done! Thanks.
(And since this is a rationalist forum, let me just point out that...
Personal opinion, everything else pertains to politics, and is kind of pointless if not;
Yeah, so? Unless lesswrong.com is specifically designed for you, that’s a bizarre comment;
Again, very specious argument. You can apply it to literally everything ever written anywhere on the internet.
Anecdotal evidence, inadmissible.)