Yeah, you would not make a good host if you welcomed your guests by interrogating them. ‘Of course your are skeptic about the value of explaining what you mean’ - what on earth does this mean? ‘It takes mental effort to value clear thinking and most people are not used to engage in that effort’ - great concealed insult. Not quite obvious enough to make you look bad, but with enough “I’m superior to you”-ness to put me down. ‘This might seem unwelcoming because I don’t allow you to easily get away with a vague statement and confront you on an intellectual level’ - nope, it’s unwelcoming because you are excessively pedantic, and because you aren’t very nice (e.g. the concealed insult).
As a note, I do not have the time nor patience to look through everything linked to me. Also, how do you quote on this website?
nope, it’s unwelcoming because you are excessively pedantic
What you call “pedantry”, some people call “clear communication”.
As a note, I do not have the time nor patience to look through everything linked to me.
I don’t want to sound condescending, but to understand discussions, you may have to. This is not an absolute rule, but it is a good rule of thumb that when someone links you somewhere, it’s a good idea to at least click on that link.
Also, how do you quote on this website?
Quotes are written by prefacing whatever you want to quote with a “greater-than” character: “>”. For instance, “> Hello.” would appear as
Hello.
EDIT: Also, note that this notation only works if you begin your quote on a new line. Using a “>” symbol in the middle of a paragraph, for instance, won’t do anything.
Yeah, you would not make a good host if you welcomed your guests by interrogating them.
Being a good host means creating an environment in which the right people feel welcome. On LW the right people happen to be people who like to explain how they reason.
Yeah, you would not make a good host if you welcomed your guests by interrogating them. ‘Of course your are skeptic about the value of explaining what you mean’ - what on earth does this mean?
You started by saying you are skeptical about this website way of handling things.
I answered with a standard way of this websites way of handling things. Asking you to taboo a term you used, without specifically using the word “taboo” because it’s internal jargon.
As you said at the beginning you are indeed skeptical of ideas of this website. Tabooing happens to be one of them.
It’s a new concept for you and for you being skeptical is not about philosophical skepticism but about having a high bar to adopting new concepts.
Being a good host means creating an environment in which the right people feel welcome.
This statement is slightly stronger than I would word it. In particular, since Perrr333 has expressed that he/she does not feel welcome, combining that fact with this statement would imply one of the following conclusions:
LessWrong is not being a good host.
Perrr333 is not one of the “right people” for LessWrong.
I don’t believe 1 is true, and I don’t think you can determine the truth of 2 after so little time. As a result, I don’t quite agree with the quoted statement above. Is that statement really what you meant to say?
This statement is slightly stronger than I would word it.
My statements are polarized. Polarization has the advantage of making clear points.
LessWrong is not being a good host.
LW is a forum. It’s not a host.
Perrr333 is not one of the “right people” for LessWrong.
As long as he’s not willing to be asked why he believes what he believes (’being interrogated”), he’s not in that category. Not being willing to go there, leads to a lot of pointless debates for the sake of debating.
On the other hand it’s something that he can easily change if he’s willing.
My statements are polarized. Polarization has the advantage of making clear points.
Fair enough.
LW is a forum. It’s not a host.
Still, wouldn’t you say LW should at least strive to provide a fairly pleasant environment for its frequenters?
As long as he’s not willing to be asked why he believes what he believes (’being interrogated”), he’s not in that category. Not being willing to go there, leads to a lot of pointless debates for the sake of debating.
On the other hand it’s something that he can easily change if he’s willing.
I don’t really disagree with this, but I’m not sure his behavior in this thread alone can be used as a reliable indicator of whether he’s willing to be “interrogated”. Possibly he may be more receptive to questioning in other threads.
Yeah, you would not make a good host if you welcomed your guests by interrogating them. ‘Of course your are skeptic about the value of explaining what you mean’ - what on earth does this mean? ‘It takes mental effort to value clear thinking and most people are not used to engage in that effort’ - great concealed insult. Not quite obvious enough to make you look bad, but with enough “I’m superior to you”-ness to put me down. ‘This might seem unwelcoming because I don’t allow you to easily get away with a vague statement and confront you on an intellectual level’ - nope, it’s unwelcoming because you are excessively pedantic, and because you aren’t very nice (e.g. the concealed insult).
As a note, I do not have the time nor patience to look through everything linked to me. Also, how do you quote on this website?
What you call “pedantry”, some people call “clear communication”.
I don’t want to sound condescending, but to understand discussions, you may have to. This is not an absolute rule, but it is a good rule of thumb that when someone links you somewhere, it’s a good idea to at least click on that link.
Quotes are written by prefacing whatever you want to quote with a “greater-than” character: “>”. For instance, “> Hello.” would appear as
EDIT: Also, note that this notation only works if you begin your quote on a new line. Using a “>” symbol in the middle of a paragraph, for instance, won’t do anything.
Being a good host means creating an environment in which the right people feel welcome. On LW the right people happen to be people who like to explain how they reason.
You started by saying you are skeptical about this website way of handling things.
I answered with a standard way of this websites way of handling things. Asking you to taboo a term you used, without specifically using the word “taboo” because it’s internal jargon.
As you said at the beginning you are indeed skeptical of ideas of this website. Tabooing happens to be one of them. It’s a new concept for you and for you being skeptical is not about philosophical skepticism but about having a high bar to adopting new concepts.
This statement is slightly stronger than I would word it. In particular, since Perrr333 has expressed that he/she does not feel welcome, combining that fact with this statement would imply one of the following conclusions:
LessWrong is not being a good host.
Perrr333 is not one of the “right people” for LessWrong.
I don’t believe 1 is true, and I don’t think you can determine the truth of 2 after so little time. As a result, I don’t quite agree with the quoted statement above. Is that statement really what you meant to say?
My statements are polarized. Polarization has the advantage of making clear points.
LW is a forum. It’s not a host.
As long as he’s not willing to be asked why he believes what he believes (’being interrogated”), he’s not in that category. Not being willing to go there, leads to a lot of pointless debates for the sake of debating.
On the other hand it’s something that he can easily change if he’s willing.
Fair enough.
Still, wouldn’t you say LW should at least strive to provide a fairly pleasant environment for its frequenters?
I don’t really disagree with this, but I’m not sure his behavior in this thread alone can be used as a reliable indicator of whether he’s willing to be “interrogated”. Possibly he may be more receptive to questioning in other threads.