I’m not planing to, even though I’m very very very sure about not getting fooled (I’ve been through Chrisitanity too in my youth, I’ve escaped with my own strength without external help or inspiration, and have since converted a few people to atheism).
I don’t plan to go back because it would be a waste of my emotional energy that I could use to work on rationality communities (that I actually care about). Pretty much what you are trying to tell me, I guess. Thanks for worrying :) I’m fine :)
Note: this is a neat example of how the economy/”investing a limited resource” viewpoint can generate better life decisions than asking “does this seem like a good idea?” about individual things.
The word infiltrated assumes entering without the knowledge or approval of the group. For the purposes of epistemic hygiene’s worthwhile to use language that accurately reflects reality.
But in any case, thanks for the feedback. It’s useful for me to know what styles of writing are interpreted in what ways around here. Actually what I’m doing right now is experimenting to increase my chances of successfully communicating some of my important ideas in the future.
I think of it as a “wink”. It’s not quite hyperbole, but, let’s say, a literary device that sets the mood and expectations. Basically it says “I’m not being entirely serious here”.
This was tongue-in-cheek of course.
I’m not planing to, even though I’m very very very sure about not getting fooled (I’ve been through Chrisitanity too in my youth, I’ve escaped with my own strength without external help or inspiration, and have since converted a few people to atheism).
I don’t plan to go back because it would be a waste of my emotional energy that I could use to work on rationality communities (that I actually care about). Pretty much what you are trying to tell me, I guess. Thanks for worrying :) I’m fine :)
Note: this is a neat example of how the economy/”investing a limited resource” viewpoint can generate better life decisions than asking “does this seem like a good idea?” about individual things.
The word infiltrated assumes entering without the knowledge or approval of the group. For the purposes of epistemic hygiene’s worthwhile to use language that accurately reflects reality.
Humor. It’s a thing. You should try it sometime.
Did you laugh while reading the headline?
See “microhumor” at http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/
But in any case, thanks for the feedback. It’s useful for me to know what styles of writing are interpreted in what ways around here. Actually what I’m doing right now is experimenting to increase my chances of successfully communicating some of my important ideas in the future.
I don’t think humor is in general a good defense for writing misleading headlines.
I don’t think “I engaged in a hostile action against outgroup X” is a good way to start humor. Cheering on humor like that produces bad dynamics.
Humor is not a defense, but a good idea. The headline is misleading only to people who can’t parse language properly.
I doubt that too many people felt they were “misled” by the headline. I think most people got the joke.
I was trying to come up with a literary term for the device used. It seems like it’s a thing.
Someone pointed out “dysphemism” as a term to me here. But that wasn’t right. Just a little hyperbole for dramatic effect? For contrast with the hug?
I think of it as a “wink”. It’s not quite hyperbole, but, let’s say, a literary device that sets the mood and expectations. Basically it says “I’m not being entirely serious here”.
I smiled. The “was hugged” expression was a hint :-)