Re-read my comment above and note what it does and does not allege; and if “Alicorn deems violation of her demands to be an atrocity” is a reasonable characterization of where she stands.
The narrowest way that I can read your comment is as follows:
“There is badness level x such that Alicorn calls any act with badness level at least x an ‘atrocity’. Alicorn thinks that responding to her would have badness level at least x and that terrorism also meets or surpasses this level.”
Is that, and no more, all that you meant to imply? You intended no implication that Alicorn considers responding to her and terrorism to be anything remotely close to morally equivalent? Do you believe that terrorism is a representative example of the kinds of acts that Alicorn believes are worse than x? If not, why did you choose that example?
And did she actually use the word “atrocity” to describe your responding to her?
1) When paraphrasing others’ views, it’s not necessary that they have used the exact words before that you use in the paraphrase. That’s what makes it a paraphrase.
The question that matters is: are her actions consistent with classifying my (unapproved) replies to her as an atrocity? I say yes. For one thing, she brooks no excuse whatsoever for violating her demands, even when it goes against her interests. One time:
-She says it’s okay to post replies to her top level comments, but not by PM. -I realize that one such “okay” comment would cause her to lose face, so I say it by PM. -She accepts that it would cause her to lose face, but that PMing her was just as bad, but would have been okay if I said it publicly.
2) I invoke terrorism to emphasize her over-the-top responses to minor offenses (as she ignores them in others). (And also to remove the sting from the word, but that’s a different story.)
1) When paraphrasing others’ views, it’s not necessary that they have used the exact words before that you use in the paraphrase. That’s what makes it a paraphrase.
Then it sounds like “atrocity” is a prime candidate for tabooing. You made a step towards unpacking “atrocity” by saying that “she brooks no excuse whatsoever for violating her demands”.
But your evidence does not show that she brooks no excuse. It shows only that saving her face is an insufficient excuse. Saving her face sounds like a pretty small payoff for getting a PM, at least on a scale that includes terrorism. Therefore, the fact that saving face is an insufficient excuse is weak evidence for the claim that all excuses are insufficient. (Suppose you knew that there was a carbon monoxide leak in her room, and you could only tell her by PM. Do you really think that she would be upset with you if you did?)
2) I invoke terrorism to emphasize her over-the-top responses to minor offenses (as she ignores them in others). (And also to remove the sting from the word, but that’s a different story.)
But, I gather, you did not mean to imply that her moral evaluation of these “minor offenses” is actually equivalent to her moral evaluation to terrorism. Is that right?
Then it sounds like “atrocity” is a prime candidate for tabooing.
Already done, as you mention, so you don’t need to belabor the issue of tabooing.
You made a step towards unpacking “atrocity” by saying that “she brooks no excuse whatsoever for violating her demands”. But your evidence does not show that she brooks no excuse.
Okay, now re-interpret everything I’ve said or will say under standard conventions, in which one does not expect statements to be perfectly exceptionless.
It shows only that saving her face is an insufficient excuse. Saving her face sounds like a pretty small payoff for getting a PM, at least in a scale that includes terrorism.
No, it shows intransitive values, which suggests simplistic, trigger-happy moral evaluations.
But, I gather, you did not mean to imply that her moral evaluation of these “minor offenses” is actually equivalent to her moral evaluation to terrorism. Is that right?
Of course? The point was the hyperbole she uses in describing my affect on her, emphasized by reference to terrorism.
Okay, now re-interpret everything I’ve said or will say under standard conventions, in which one does not expect statements to be perfectly exceptionless.
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”? If it is only because I used the phrase “no excuse”, then you are failing to extend to me the consideration that you are requesting.
No, it shows intransitive values, which suggests simplistic, trigger-happy moral evaluations.
This is not relevant, because I am not challenging your contention that she ought to like you. I am challenging the following contentions:
(1) It is appropriate to say “I can’t even reply to this comment . . . as she will consider it an atrocity (much like terrorism is an atrocity)”.
(2) Her decision not to like you shows that she is unqualified to give the advice in the OP.
The point was the hyperbole she uses in describing my affect on her, emphasized by reference to terrorism.
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”?
Because you base your entire reply to it on the assumption that it is substantively refuted the moment you find one atypical exception?
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Second time: I do have solid proof for this in that she very much enjoys my contributions and even makes non-specific comments attempting to draw me out, so long as she doesn’t know it’s me. I have the smoking gun, however implausible you might think that to be. (Though I assure you I did not seek out such a gun, as no amount of effort would have reliably gotten Alicorn to do this; it’s too improbable.)
I will reveal who Jocaste is[1] once enough people can agree this would be sufficiently informative evidence.
[1] “reveal who Jocaste is” = an term I just made up which should make sense if you’re familiar with the story of Oedipus.
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”?
Because you base your entire reply to it on the assumption that it is substantively refuted the moment you find one atypical exception?
No, that was not the assumption of my reply. The assumption of my reply was that the excuse I gave (carbon monoxide leak) would not justify committing an atrocity. Therefore, if the excuse is an exception, then PMing her would not be an atrocity.
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Second time: I do have solid proof for this in that she very much enjoys my contributions and even makes non-specific comments attempting to draw me out, so long as she doesn’t know it’s me. I have the smoking gun, however implausible you might think that to be. (Though I assure you I did not seek out such a gun, as no amount of effort would have reliably gotten Alicorn to do this; it’s too improbable.)
Suppose she said, “You know, Jocaste*, I really like your comments. I wish that you would post more often, especially in reply to my comments.”
That would not prove that her claims of psychological stress were hyperbole. The stress evidently arises from interacting with an entire picture of a person built from an entire comment history, not from any arbitrary subportion of that comment history.
For all of the reasons anyone would make a separate account here: to make an (unrelated) point, to see if my comments are modded differently if people don’t know it’s me, to pose questions I wouldn’t want to ask under my real name, etc. etc.
Again, Blueberry, I could have gotten CIA covert ops to help me trick Alicorn into making the comments I have in mind; it still wouldn’t have done any good. These are remarks you just can’t reliably lure people into saying.
Enough. If you really want to know, then add your name to and promote this petition,
“We, the undersigned, are prepared to believe Alicorn has been deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive toward Silas, as judged by her treatment of Silas when she doesn’t know it’s him; and that this behavior casts doubt on the merit of her interpersonal advice, once we learn who Silas’s alternate identity is and see Alicorn’s relevant posts regarding that person.”
which is one of the few reasons I’d couple myself to the other screenname. (And I suspect Alicorn is taking a long walk through her comment history right about now...)
That’s ridiculous and insulting. If she reacts differently to your other identity, it’s because your other identity has acted differently. And if you want a person to like you, then circulating a petition saying bad things about them, as you are doing now, is among the very worst things you could do.
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
I think you could really benefit from a hot cup of “get some perspective”. Despite all the flak I get for characterizing Alicorn et al’s reactions to me as calling them “atrocities” and “terrorism”, it’s comments like yours here that show that people really dive into the hyperbole when talking about what I did.
“Extremely threatening behavior”? Um, hello? I don’t know who Alicorn is, or what she looks like, and only sketchy information about where I’d find her. If you believe that anything about my behavior here, anything whatsoever, is “extremely threatening”, then start acting like it—go get the police involved, since you think such a severe threat is going on.
And after the police laugh in your face, you could take a deep breath, drop the hyperbole, and stop looking for reasons to smear me. Sound like a plan?
It’s easy to throw off a damaging, irresponsible allegation that someone else is dangerous. The hard part is to actually substantiate that chest-beating. And it’s yet harder to unring the great “evil” bell you’ve just rung over my head. An apology is in order—but I’ve learned long ago not to expect that, from anyone here, once they’ve comitted to a position publicly.
Very true. And since I was the one giving you a hard time for the “atrocity” and “terrorism” remarks, I feel bound to point out that accusing you of “extremely threatening behavior” is not only hyperbolic, but also more damaging to discourse because it amounts to accusing you of a crime. Definitely not cool.
“threatening” doesn’t necessarily imply threats of violence or criminality, it can simply refer to threats of further harassment.
But how about we remove the word “threatening” and replace it with plain ole “creepy”.
creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely creepy behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
It would be creepy for someone to create an alternative identity and use it to interact intentionally with Alicorn in a way that they couldn’t with their original identify.
OK. I have no idea what Silas did, beyond what’s been said in this thread. I was just trying to rephrase the statement in a way that removed the connotation of criminality that was alleged to be embedded in the word “threatening”
That’s ridiculous and insulting. If she reacts differently to your other identity, it’s because your other identity has acted differently.
But when this identity acts like that identity, somehow, that’s not enough to change her reaction! Go fig.
And if you want a person to like you, then circulating a petition saying bad things about them, as you are doing now....
What a crock. Even when the comment was up (which it hasn’t been for 15+ minutes), it wasn’t doing that. But I guess deleted comments are the easiest targets for misrepresentation.
Seriously, are you capable of having all the facts before you criticize someone? Is that just not in your job description?
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
Except a) I didn’t seek to “interact with Alicorn”. Rather, Miss “I’m terrified of Jocaste” replied to Oedipus’s mother!
and
b) alternate screennames, in and of themselves, are acceptable behavior on LW and do not count as deception for the numerous justifiable reasons for using them.
Wait, I forgot—this is Silas we’re talking about. Screw the rules.
Ok, there’s some unfortunate timing here in that I saw and replied to the post above without knowing that it was deleted. I infer from the fact that you deleted it, that you realized the subtext was saying something you didn’t mean to say. So, I applaud your discretion and will delete my criticisms in the grandparent. I also had wrongly assumed that you had used your alternate identity to post replies to Alicorn rather than the other way around, which would have very different significance.
I do think you ought to take a lesson from Prof Quirrell on backing down gracefully, though.
Can you substantiate this claim about what she considers to be morally equivalent better than you did in this conversation?
Re-read my comment above and note what it does and does not allege; and if “Alicorn deems violation of her demands to be an atrocity” is a reasonable characterization of where she stands.
The narrowest way that I can read your comment is as follows:
“There is badness level x such that Alicorn calls any act with badness level at least x an ‘atrocity’. Alicorn thinks that responding to her would have badness level at least x and that terrorism also meets or surpasses this level.”
Is that, and no more, all that you meant to imply? You intended no implication that Alicorn considers responding to her and terrorism to be anything remotely close to morally equivalent? Do you believe that terrorism is a representative example of the kinds of acts that Alicorn believes are worse than x? If not, why did you choose that example?
And did she actually use the word “atrocity” to describe your responding to her?
1) When paraphrasing others’ views, it’s not necessary that they have used the exact words before that you use in the paraphrase. That’s what makes it a paraphrase.
The question that matters is: are her actions consistent with classifying my (unapproved) replies to her as an atrocity? I say yes. For one thing, she brooks no excuse whatsoever for violating her demands, even when it goes against her interests. One time:
-She says it’s okay to post replies to her top level comments, but not by PM.
-I realize that one such “okay” comment would cause her to lose face, so I say it by PM.
-She accepts that it would cause her to lose face, but that PMing her was just as bad, but would have been okay if I said it publicly.
2) I invoke terrorism to emphasize her over-the-top responses to minor offenses (as she ignores them in others). (And also to remove the sting from the word, but that’s a different story.)
Then it sounds like “atrocity” is a prime candidate for tabooing. You made a step towards unpacking “atrocity” by saying that “she brooks no excuse whatsoever for violating her demands”.
But your evidence does not show that she brooks no excuse. It shows only that saving her face is an insufficient excuse. Saving her face sounds like a pretty small payoff for getting a PM, at least on a scale that includes terrorism. Therefore, the fact that saving face is an insufficient excuse is weak evidence for the claim that all excuses are insufficient. (Suppose you knew that there was a carbon monoxide leak in her room, and you could only tell her by PM. Do you really think that she would be upset with you if you did?)
But, I gather, you did not mean to imply that her moral evaluation of these “minor offenses” is actually equivalent to her moral evaluation to terrorism. Is that right?
Already done, as you mention, so you don’t need to belabor the issue of tabooing.
Okay, now re-interpret everything I’ve said or will say under standard conventions, in which one does not expect statements to be perfectly exceptionless.
No, it shows intransitive values, which suggests simplistic, trigger-happy moral evaluations.
Of course? The point was the hyperbole she uses in describing my affect on her, emphasized by reference to terrorism.
Why do you think that I took you to mean that your statement was “perfectly exceptionless”? If it is only because I used the phrase “no excuse”, then you are failing to extend to me the consideration that you are requesting.
This is not relevant, because I am not challenging your contention that she ought to like you. I am challenging the following contentions:
(1) It is appropriate to say “I can’t even reply to this comment . . . as she will consider it an atrocity (much like terrorism is an atrocity)”.
(2) Her decision not to like you shows that she is unqualified to give the advice in the OP.
You know that her description of psychological stress is hyperbole? That doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that you could establish reliably over the internet. Not without some smoking gun like her saying, “You know, Silas, I really like interacting with you.”
Because you base your entire reply to it on the assumption that it is substantively refuted the moment you find one atypical exception?
Second time: I do have solid proof for this in that she very much enjoys my contributions and even makes non-specific comments attempting to draw me out, so long as she doesn’t know it’s me. I have the smoking gun, however implausible you might think that to be. (Though I assure you I did not seek out such a gun, as no amount of effort would have reliably gotten Alicorn to do this; it’s too improbable.)
I will reveal who Jocaste is[1] once enough people can agree this would be sufficiently informative evidence.
[1] “reveal who Jocaste is” = an term I just made up which should make sense if you’re familiar with the story of Oedipus.
No, that was not the assumption of my reply. The assumption of my reply was that the excuse I gave (carbon monoxide leak) would not justify committing an atrocity. Therefore, if the excuse is an exception, then PMing her would not be an atrocity.
Suppose she said, “You know, Jocaste*, I really like your comments. I wish that you would post more often, especially in reply to my comments.”
That would not prove that her claims of psychological stress were hyperbole. The stress evidently arises from interacting with an entire picture of a person built from an entire comment history, not from any arbitrary subportion of that comment history.
* Here I’m using “Jocaste” as a place-holder.
Then why did you make this alternate identity?
For all of the reasons anyone would make a separate account here: to make an (unrelated) point, to see if my comments are modded differently if people don’t know it’s me, to pose questions I wouldn’t want to ask under my real name, etc. etc.
Again, Blueberry, I could have gotten CIA covert ops to help me trick Alicorn into making the comments I have in mind; it still wouldn’t have done any good. These are remarks you just can’t reliably lure people into saying.
I’m really curious now who it is. So why don’t you just switch over to your new identity?
Enough. If you really want to know, then add your name to and promote this petition,
“We, the undersigned, are prepared to believe Alicorn has been deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive toward Silas, as judged by her treatment of Silas when she doesn’t know it’s him; and that this behavior casts doubt on the merit of her interpersonal advice, once we learn who Silas’s alternate identity is and see Alicorn’s relevant posts regarding that person.”
which is one of the few reasons I’d couple myself to the other screenname. (And I suspect Alicorn is taking a long walk through her comment history right about now...)
That’s ridiculous and insulting. If she reacts differently to your other identity, it’s because your other identity has acted differently. And if you want a person to like you, then circulating a petition saying bad things about them, as you are doing now, is among the very worst things you could do.
Furthermore, creating an alternate identity and interacting with Alicorn under it is extremely threatening behavior; it demonstrates both an unhealthy obsession and a willingness to deceive.
By the way, regarding this:
I think you could really benefit from a hot cup of “get some perspective”. Despite all the flak I get for characterizing Alicorn et al’s reactions to me as calling them “atrocities” and “terrorism”, it’s comments like yours here that show that people really dive into the hyperbole when talking about what I did.
“Extremely threatening behavior”? Um, hello? I don’t know who Alicorn is, or what she looks like, and only sketchy information about where I’d find her. If you believe that anything about my behavior here, anything whatsoever, is “extremely threatening”, then start acting like it—go get the police involved, since you think such a severe threat is going on.
And after the police laugh in your face, you could take a deep breath, drop the hyperbole, and stop looking for reasons to smear me. Sound like a plan?
It’s easy to throw off a damaging, irresponsible allegation that someone else is dangerous. The hard part is to actually substantiate that chest-beating. And it’s yet harder to unring the great “evil” bell you’ve just rung over my head. An apology is in order—but I’ve learned long ago not to expect that, from anyone here, once they’ve comitted to a position publicly.
Very true. And since I was the one giving you a hard time for the “atrocity” and “terrorism” remarks, I feel bound to point out that accusing you of “extremely threatening behavior” is not only hyperbolic, but also more damaging to discourse because it amounts to accusing you of a crime. Definitely not cool.
“threatening” doesn’t necessarily imply threats of violence or criminality, it can simply refer to threats of further harassment.
But how about we remove the word “threatening” and replace it with plain ole “creepy”.
Does anyone disagree with this statement?
It would be creepy for someone to create an alternative identity and use it to interact intentionally with Alicorn in a way that they couldn’t with their original identify.
But that’s not what Silas did.
OK. I have no idea what Silas did, beyond what’s been said in this thread. I was just trying to rephrase the statement in a way that removed the connotation of criminality that was alleged to be embedded in the word “threatening”
But when this identity acts like that identity, somehow, that’s not enough to change her reaction! Go fig.
What a crock. Even when the comment was up (which it hasn’t been for 15+ minutes), it wasn’t doing that. But I guess deleted comments are the easiest targets for misrepresentation.
Seriously, are you capable of having all the facts before you criticize someone? Is that just not in your job description?
Except a) I didn’t seek to “interact with Alicorn”. Rather, Miss “I’m terrified of Jocaste” replied to Oedipus’s mother!
and
b) alternate screennames, in and of themselves, are acceptable behavior on LW and do not count as deception for the numerous justifiable reasons for using them.
Wait, I forgot—this is Silas we’re talking about. Screw the rules.
Ok, there’s some unfortunate timing here in that I saw and replied to the post above without knowing that it was deleted. I infer from the fact that you deleted it, that you realized the subtext was saying something you didn’t mean to say. So, I applaud your discretion and will delete my criticisms in the grandparent. I also had wrongly assumed that you had used your alternate identity to post replies to Alicorn rather than the other way around, which would have very different significance.
I do think you ought to take a lesson from Prof Quirrell on backing down gracefully, though.
No, you just explained why it would be instrumentally useful to YOU for her to decide to like you.