Some of Yudkowsky’s arguments were good, but he was still an embarrassment to the movement. If I recall correctly he posted maybe half a dozen Facebook statuses to the effect of “OMG Trump is THE WORST” before offering any sort of argument. Of course, this plays in to the idea that people who oppose Trump are bullies who care more about optics than substance.
Some of Yudkowsky’s arguments were good, but he was still an embarrassment to the movement. If I recall correctly he posted maybe half a dozen Facebook statuses to the effect of “OMG Trump is THE WORST” before offering any sort of argument. Of course, this plays in to the idea that people who oppose Trump are bullies who care more about optics than substance.
This style of argument seems unproductive.
The concrete accusation against Yudkowsky is apparently that he made several posts which mentioned his position on Trump before making the posts which laid out the reasoning behind his position. If that is a vice, it seems like a minor one.
It’s possible that there was something specific about Yudkowsky’s posts which made them worse, but there are no details given here, nor links which might allow someone to see what exactly he wrote and form their own opinion. Just an uncharitable paraphrase “OMG Trump is THE WORST”. Uncharitable paraphrases are a fuel of unproductive political discussions, since they make it easy for people to talk past each other, get caught up in their preferred storylines, and collect reasons for disliking the other side.
The loaded terms (e.g., “embarrassment”, “bullies”) also aren’t helpful if the goal is to have a conversation where people who disagree about Trump can talk with each other productively. They also don’t seem to fit the behavior described. Yudkowsky thought that one of the two major party candidates would be a bad President, and he shared that opinion on Facebook several times before giving his reasoning. What a ?bully?!
If something about his posts was bullying, then call him out on it and be clear about what the bullying consisted of. If they weren’t bullying and you’re just concerned that other people might mistakenly see them as bullying and think less of the rationality community because of it, then talk about them in a way that makes it clear that they were not bullying. “Of course, this plays in to the idea that people who oppose Trump are bullies” does neither.
The concrete accusation against Yudkowsky is apparently that he made several posts which mentioned his position on Trump before making the posts which laid out the reasoning behind his position. If that is a vice, it seems like a minor one.
The way I remember it, he “mentioned his position” in a way that came across as mudslinging. It certainly did not seem like his goal was to “have a conversation where people who disagree about Trump can talk with each other productively”. I think you’re holding me to a higher standard than you’re holding him.
But maybe you’re right that I should have written my comment more carefully.
Some of Yudkowsky’s arguments were good, but he was still an embarrassment to the movement. If I recall correctly he posted maybe half a dozen Facebook statuses to the effect of “OMG Trump is THE WORST” before offering any sort of argument. Of course, this plays in to the idea that people who oppose Trump are bullies who care more about optics than substance.
And the evidence he offered us was filtered evidence. He mentioned that open letter, but he didn’t mention this list of conservative intellectuals who endorse Trump or this list of generals.
This style of argument seems unproductive.
The concrete accusation against Yudkowsky is apparently that he made several posts which mentioned his position on Trump before making the posts which laid out the reasoning behind his position. If that is a vice, it seems like a minor one.
It’s possible that there was something specific about Yudkowsky’s posts which made them worse, but there are no details given here, nor links which might allow someone to see what exactly he wrote and form their own opinion. Just an uncharitable paraphrase “OMG Trump is THE WORST”. Uncharitable paraphrases are a fuel of unproductive political discussions, since they make it easy for people to talk past each other, get caught up in their preferred storylines, and collect reasons for disliking the other side.
The loaded terms (e.g., “embarrassment”, “bullies”) also aren’t helpful if the goal is to have a conversation where people who disagree about Trump can talk with each other productively. They also don’t seem to fit the behavior described. Yudkowsky thought that one of the two major party candidates would be a bad President, and he shared that opinion on Facebook several times before giving his reasoning. What a ?bully?!
If something about his posts was bullying, then call him out on it and be clear about what the bullying consisted of. If they weren’t bullying and you’re just concerned that other people might mistakenly see them as bullying and think less of the rationality community because of it, then talk about them in a way that makes it clear that they were not bullying. “Of course, this plays in to the idea that people who oppose Trump are bullies” does neither.
The way I remember it, he “mentioned his position” in a way that came across as mudslinging. It certainly did not seem like his goal was to “have a conversation where people who disagree about Trump can talk with each other productively”. I think you’re holding me to a higher standard than you’re holding him.
But maybe you’re right that I should have written my comment more carefully.
And certainly no signs of the Charles Darwin ‘steelman’ strategy. Did not make the best possible case for Trump before making the opposite case.
Politics does make being rational very difficult. He certainly got that one right.
These sources are very partisan and biased.