I disagree with byrnema’s opinions; but that isn’t a reason to downvote byrnema in this context. We are not discussing whether theism & drug war are rational; we’re discussing whether they are uncontroversial on LW.
gjm claimed the badness of theism is uncontroversial on LW; others claimed the badness of the drug war is uncontroversial on LW. byrnema provided a datapoint that disproved them both. Hence, I upvoted byrnema, even though the disconfirmation of our consensus disappointed me. I also would rather encourage bravery than discourage it.
This is not cut-and-dried, since we can also display our degree of consensus by upvoting and downvoting things we agree and disagree with. I guess I’m making a special exception for someone who provides us with datapoints on issues that we already know there is a general consensus on here on LW; while continuing to use up/downvoting to indicate my opinion of other topics (eg global warming). For instance, when NeedleFactory says he thinks there is consensus here that humans don’t cause global warming, that’s astonishing, and I should perhaps downvote it to show there is no such consensus.
The prediction “No doubt I’ll be voted down for this” proved correct. Is it rational to downvote someone for making a correct prediction?
As I have commented once already today, I vote down all comments that start “No doubt I’ll be voted down for this, but...” If I had another downvote to give for asserting that theism can be rational with not a word to defend it and a third for the inevitable cheap accusation of groupthink, you’d get those too.
It’s not that you’re not allowed to suggest it, it’s that if you’re going to, you should have better evidence than that you anticipate a lot of disagreement. Preferably, you should suggest a way for us to distinguish us suffering from groupthink from you being wrong.
And please can we have less of this stuff about rules and what you’re allowed to say? We are not The Man who’s Holding You Down. Voted down comments are not removed; if you don’t care what other people think of a contribution then set your threshold to −1000.
Oh no, you misunderstand. Let’s take it for granted that I am wrong. I disagree with the consensus of the group, and the group is based on rational (correct) thinking, so it is actually likely that I am wrong.
I was only making the point that not everyone agrees with a purportedly uncontroversial position. Myself and anyone else who holds the view that theism can be rational may ALL be wrong, that is neither here nor there. UNLESS… do you want to say that if we’re wrong, we’re not rational, we’re not members of the group?
This is an important point because we are discussing whether anti-theism is uncontroversial in this group. That is the only reason why I was trying to see if you would qualify my membership in the group. (Of course it was a trap … I wanted to see how and to what extent the group-think is asserted here.)
Your comment about “please can we have less of this stuff about rules and what you’re allowed to say? ” seemed emotional to me, or at least projected inappropriate emotion on myself. The Man Holding Me Down is not part of my world view.
I have noticed that people who express negativity tend to get voted down; but I attributed it to the instinct to crush the omega wolf. I didn’t imagine it was a conscious decision. So I also dislike your downvoting-rule because of my instinct to support the underdog.
I don’t know how to reconcile the instinct to crush the omega wolf with the instinct to support the underdog. They’re both real.
I didn’t downvote this comment that I’m replying to. I try to downvote only the topmost comment in a series. Downvoting every comment in a series of responses discourages people who disagree from engaging with each other.
I voted you up because I like feedback about my posts, and I like your writing style and tone.
I’m not defending theism because that’s not the point of this post. The point of my comment is that someone (me) would defend theism.
Groupthink is not such a cheap accusation, because gim asserted that theism is “uncontroversially wrong, at least here on LW”. But if it is controversial, then the apparent consensus here is groupthink. The question is; does thinking theism can be rational automatically exclude me from membership at LW?
The consensus here is simply because theism and uncompartmentalized rationalism are completely incompatible. But that’s not to say that theists are barred from posting here; no-one’s set out any conditions of membership.
“Theism” is too loose to really argue about it being rational or irrational with providing specific examples. If I just choose a random theism from a list, the odds are high it will be pretty irrational.
Is it theoretically plausible to create a rational theism? Probably, but getting it qualified as... a) Theistic b) Rational c) Religious
No doubt I’ll be voted down for this.
But I (for one) think theism can be a rational position, and the apparent consensus here is just an example of your group-think.
Likewise with the drug-war. I imagine legalizing marijuana is a libertarian position, not necessarily held by a rationalist.
I disagree with byrnema’s opinions; but that isn’t a reason to downvote byrnema in this context. We are not discussing whether theism & drug war are rational; we’re discussing whether they are uncontroversial on LW.
gjm claimed the badness of theism is uncontroversial on LW; others claimed the badness of the drug war is uncontroversial on LW. byrnema provided a datapoint that disproved them both. Hence, I upvoted byrnema, even though the disconfirmation of our consensus disappointed me. I also would rather encourage bravery than discourage it.
This is not cut-and-dried, since we can also display our degree of consensus by upvoting and downvoting things we agree and disagree with. I guess I’m making a special exception for someone who provides us with datapoints on issues that we already know there is a general consensus on here on LW; while continuing to use up/downvoting to indicate my opinion of other topics (eg global warming). For instance, when NeedleFactory says he thinks there is consensus here that humans don’t cause global warming, that’s astonishing, and I should perhaps downvote it to show there is no such consensus.
The prediction “No doubt I’ll be voted down for this” proved correct. Is it rational to downvote someone for making a correct prediction?
“No doubt I’ll be voted down for this” often does correlated with being voted down (or voted up a lot) but that doesn’t make it any less whiny!
As I have commented once already today, I vote down all comments that start “No doubt I’ll be voted down for this, but...” If I had another downvote to give for asserting that theism can be rational with not a word to defend it and a third for the inevitable cheap accusation of groupthink, you’d get those too.
I voted you down for that. Seems like you’re trying to prevent people from suggesting the existence of groupthink.
The first rule of groupthink is: Don’t talk about groupthink!
ADDED: Is it rational for you to downvote someone for making a correct prediction?
It’s not that you’re not allowed to suggest it, it’s that if you’re going to, you should have better evidence than that you anticipate a lot of disagreement. Preferably, you should suggest a way for us to distinguish us suffering from groupthink from you being wrong.
And please can we have less of this stuff about rules and what you’re allowed to say? We are not The Man who’s Holding You Down. Voted down comments are not removed; if you don’t care what other people think of a contribution then set your threshold to −1000.
Oh no, you misunderstand. Let’s take it for granted that I am wrong. I disagree with the consensus of the group, and the group is based on rational (correct) thinking, so it is actually likely that I am wrong.
I was only making the point that not everyone agrees with a purportedly uncontroversial position. Myself and anyone else who holds the view that theism can be rational may ALL be wrong, that is neither here nor there. UNLESS… do you want to say that if we’re wrong, we’re not rational, we’re not members of the group?
This is an important point because we are discussing whether anti-theism is uncontroversial in this group. That is the only reason why I was trying to see if you would qualify my membership in the group. (Of course it was a trap … I wanted to see how and to what extent the group-think is asserted here.)
Your comment about “please can we have less of this stuff about rules and what you’re allowed to say? ” seemed emotional to me, or at least projected inappropriate emotion on myself. The Man Holding Me Down is not part of my world view.
I have noticed that people who express negativity tend to get voted down; but I attributed it to the instinct to crush the omega wolf. I didn’t imagine it was a conscious decision. So I also dislike your downvoting-rule because of my instinct to support the underdog.
I don’t know how to reconcile the instinct to crush the omega wolf with the instinct to support the underdog. They’re both real.
I didn’t downvote this comment that I’m replying to. I try to downvote only the topmost comment in a series. Downvoting every comment in a series of responses discourages people who disagree from engaging with each other.
I voted you down because I’m annoyed by people who suggest that suggesting the existence of groupthink is forbidden.
Of course, I’m sure I’ll be… um… actually, I’d better not finish that sentence.
I didn’t vote you down because I’m engaging in status signalling by rejecting peer pressure to vote people down for silly reasons. So there.
Lame.
I voted you up because I like feedback about my posts, and I like your writing style and tone.
I’m not defending theism because that’s not the point of this post. The point of my comment is that someone (me) would defend theism.
Groupthink is not such a cheap accusation, because gim asserted that theism is “uncontroversially wrong, at least here on LW”. But if it is controversial, then the apparent consensus here is groupthink. The question is; does thinking theism can be rational automatically exclude me from membership at LW?
Heh, thanks!
The consensus here is simply because theism and uncompartmentalized rationalism are completely incompatible. But that’s not to say that theists are barred from posting here; no-one’s set out any conditions of membership.
“Theism” is too loose to really argue about it being rational or irrational with providing specific examples. If I just choose a random theism from a list, the odds are high it will be pretty irrational.
Is it theoretically plausible to create a rational theism? Probably, but getting it qualified as...
a) Theistic
b) Rational
c) Religious
… may find you stuck in a war of semantics.