My request that you not reply to my comments was not, and never became, an invitation for replies to my comments.
Alicorn’s request for SilasBarta to not reply to her comments was not, and never became, an obligation for him to not speak up when Alicorn says things that he opposes.
Replying to a comment on a forum is not the same as approaching someone in person to engage in conversation. It is, fittingly, like responding to a public speech at the forum. Accordingly, the right to reply to Alicorn’s comments isn’t something that requires her ‘invitation’. She does not have the right to speak whatever she wishes and demand that someone in particular who disagrees with her may not reply. (Except, I suppose, in the technical sense whereby she could in principle abuse her moderation powers to prevent someone replying for any reason she chose.)
This particular play for status and control over SilasBarta should be rejected and crushed mercilessly. SilasBarta’s comment isn’t personal in nature and so does not represent the kind of social approach that fits with the subject of this thread and doesn’t get the same treatment.
The solution to not wanting to see replies by a specific individual is an ignore feature and that is one we really need here. There are plenty of people I whose comments I don’t want to see and as a bonus that which is not seen can not be fed.
Also, the grandparent is disingenuous. Presumably, Silas assumed that the request had simply expired, not that it had morphed into a different kind of request.
...as did I, frankly. I’m now commenting here after seeing this and thinking, “Oh, no, please don’t let this be about....that!”, and then finding, to my utter horror, that it was indeed about that.
My request that you not reply to my comments was not, and never became, an invitation for replies to my comments.
Alicorn’s request for SilasBarta to not reply to her comments was not, and never became, an obligation for him to not speak up when Alicorn says things that he opposes.
Alicorn’s request was exactly that. What else could the words possibly mean?
I agree that an “ignore” feature would be very valuable for this site.
A request is not exactly an obligation. If you disagree, I request that you give me all your money.
What else could the words possibly mean?
I think my words above mean that I have uttered an unreasonable request that someone with healthy boundaries would ignore.
(Note that even if you happen to believe people have the particular rights of control over others that Alicorn has claimed your reply here would still seem to be confusing the nature of the relationship between verbal symbols and obligation.)
I don’t really enjoy bringing this up, much less in this thread, but IIRC, it used to be that SilasBarta would hound Alicorn and “follow her around” on the site (by specifically tracking her recent comments) in order to confront her. This is deeply disruptive behavior which can actually drive honest users off the site, so it’s very much not OK. No users should be getting this kind of treatment, unless they’re actually being so annoying on their own that we’d rather drive them off.
Let Silas apologize to Eliezer directly for his problem behavior, then we can think about lifting these restrictions on his commenting privileges.
but IIRC, it used to be that SilasBarta would hound Alicorn and “follow her around” on the site (by specifically tracking her recent comments) in order to confront her.
Oh the irony. The last link in the OP specifically discusses exactly this scenario.
While the outcome for a woman targeted by a man like this is poor, the damage done to the group by all the other men staying silent (or outright supporting him) is huge. Really, this isn’t even buried in the comments, this is the whole point of the two letters discussed in that link.
I can’t speak to whether there are problems of this sort in LW meetups, but right here is our evidence of it here in LW comments.
I understand concerns about censorship, arbitrary moderation, special treatment, etc, but everyone who downvoted Alicorn and upvoted wedrifid here has also sent a message of tacit support for SilasBarta and a very clear message to any other woman here.
From my link above, edited:
Step 1: A creepy dude does creepy, entitled shit and makes women feel unsafe {in LW}
Step 2: The women speak up about it {in LW}
Step 3: It gets written off as “not a big deal” or “he probably didn’t mean it” or “he’s not a bad guy, really.” {...}
Step 4: Everyone is worried about hurting creepy dude’s feelings or making it weird for creepy dude. Better yet,
everyone is worried about how the other dudes in the friend group will feel if they are called out for enabling
creepy dude. Women are worried that if they push the issue, that the entire friend group will side with creepy
dude or that they’ll be blamed for causing “drama.” {...}
Step 5: Creepy dude creeps on with his creepy self. He’s learned that there are no real (i.e. “disapproval &
pushback from dudes and dude society”) consequences to his actions. Women feel creeped out and
unsafe. Some of them decide to take a firm stand against creeping and not {participate in LW} anymore.
{...} Some of the woman decide to just quietly put up with it, because they’ve learned that no one will really side
with them and it’s easier to go along than to lose one’s entire community. The whole group works around this
missing stair.
By this exact scenario, do you mean something TOTALLY different? disagreeing with someone who makes public comments on an internet forum is not “creepy entitled shit” (you wouldn’t even have thought to make this accusation here if SilasBarta was female and Eliezer was the target) and even if we assume that the original situation of banning him from responding to her was totally justified (I don’t know, I haven’t read the backdrama), then it’s still ridiculous for Alicorn to respond to a thread SilasBarta is talking in without him being able to reply. I’m not trying to defend anything SilasBarta did in the past, I’m trying to defend conversation. If you have a restraining order against someone, you shouldn’t walk right up to THEM and force them to leave wherever they happen to be.
(you wouldn’t even have thought to make this accusation here if SilasBarta was female and Eliezer was the target)
Agreed, and I think that says something interesting and useful. Symmetry is not a useful tool here.
If there’s broader interest in seeing some attempt at a rationalist view of privilege I’m keen to get whatever help is available, and take it to a separate Discussion.
I would be interested in seeing some attempt at a rationalist view of privilege, however I’m not sure that it would be welcome here; also I do think there are many advantages in trying to stick to the “no mindkiller topics” rule. Do you have a personal blog that you could post it on? If you do decide post it on LW I would recommend using the open thread, rather than the discussion or main section.
I suspect if I were LW-high-status, I could politely point out that while we’ve both argued from assertions, one of us has expanded on their assertion, and one of us has not.
Unless you mean “that linked post does not discuss LW or any of the individuals you reference, so claiming it specifically discusses exactly this scenario is trivially false”? I have no objection to curbing my hyperbole with an edit.
I take from your vehemence that your disagreement is more fundamental though. Do you have more words there you’re willing to add, here or in PM?
I suspect if I were LW-high-status, I could politely point out that while we’ve both argued from assertions, one of us has expanded on their assertion, and one of us has not.
What is it about being low status that makes you think you are better served by making the claim passively aggressively rather than politely? Politeness usually more important when status is lacking, not less. Or do you consider this style to be even more polite than, well, pointing out politely?
As it happens I have expanded rather a lot in my original message. I chose not to expand further in response to either you or bogus because I didn’t see benefit to such engagement.
I take from your vehemence that your disagreement is more fundamental though.
The thing in the OP is bad. Replying to public comments isn’t. That is all.
Oh the irony. The last link in the OP specifically discusses exactly this scenario.
No way. Hounding users on an internet site can cause a lot of annoyance and status problems, but it’s not creepy, i.e. it entails no shared threat of bodily harm. People routinely get away with extremely weird behavior on internet groups, even though corresponding behaviors (even something as mild as a heated social confrontation) would get them shunned and ostracized, or perhaps physically assaulted and injured, in a real-world actual community where bodily harm considerations are critical. There is nothing wrong with this persay—it just takes some getting used to.
Hounding someone, even if there are no threats, can turn an online group into no fun for them.
I’m not convinced it’s true that all female fury at male inappropriate attention is based in fear of physical harm. However, large amounts of inappropriate attention can be a huge attention and energy drain—mental cpus are a limited resource.
No way. Hounding users on an internet site can cause a lot of annoyance and status problems, but it’s not creepy, i.e. it entails no shared threat of bodily harm.
I disagree with your definition of “creepy”. However, whether we define the word that way or not, would you agree that it is behaviour worth discouraging?
It is one thing to disagree with a view that someone is expressing. It is quite another to follow that person around, disproportionately, in order to find opportunities to disagree specifically with them, (whether that’s in order to make them feel unwelcome and drive them out, or whether via some twisted logic the hounder feels it gains them dominance or even sees it as courting behaviour).
Just confirming: are you disagreeing because link posited risk of escalation to assault which I agree seems impossible in a purely online context?
I drew the analogy because it called out the toxic effects on a community, and that in many ways the toxicity is not that there was a creeper, but that there is much signalling in their support that has follow-on effects.
Assuming those claimed signalling secondary losses are correct, I don’t see anything specific to an online context that would be immune. The “risk of escalation” discussed there seems severable from its other points.
I am disagreeing because I regard what you call “risk of escalation to assault” (or, more generally: risks of bodily harm and benefits from tightly-knit social cooperation) as a critical determinant of social interaction. It is very hard to meaningfully compare real-world and online contexts, much less regard them as “the exact same scenario”.
(Indeed, I have jokingly argued before that we should totally deprecate and taboo the term “community” as referring to online social groups, since it tends to promote this very kind of ontological confusion.)
As for your question about “toxicity”, let’s just say that this particular discussion has been held already. If anything, LW has seemed to err towards taking complaints about divisive or disruptive behavior more seriously than they otherwise would, especially when outgroup status is a factor.
I have just solicited from Eliezer, and received, permission to ban further comments from Silas that reply to me.
(Except, I suppose, in the technical sense whereby she could in principle abuse her moderation powers to prevent someone replying for any reason she chose.)
It seems my caveats were too generous. I honestly thought you would be outright offended if I even hinted that you would do such a thing. It seems obviously the sort of thing a moderator would be careful not to do.
Silas, please document all such abuses—PM them to me.
It should be noted that all instances of comments which moderator privileges prevent reply to represent comments that I wish to see less of on lesswrong, for reasons related to filtered evidence.
Thanks. Interestingly, I was about to reply to your quoted comment with something about it being irresponsible to even insinuate that a moderator would abuse their power that way, &c. but … yeah. I just PM’d EY for confirmation. If true, this may just be “jump the shark” day.
I doubt that a rogue moderator would receive express advance approval of abusive actions. If Eliezer says that Alicorn may ban certain comments, then it is not abusive for Alicorn to ban those comments.
I doubt that a rogue moderator would receive express advance approval of abusive actions. If Eliezer says that Alicorn may ban certain comments, then it is not abusive for Alicorn to ban those comments.
If Eliezer’s approval makes the action tautologically non-abusive then please act as if I substituted a different word that means something along the lines of “detrimental, innapropriate, politically ill advised, deprecated and considered ‘naughty’ by user:wedrifid”. ;)
Alicorn’s request for SilasBarta to not reply to her comments was not, and never became, an obligation for him to not speak up when Alicorn says things that he opposes.
Replying to a comment on a forum is not the same as approaching someone in person to engage in conversation. It is, fittingly, like responding to a public speech at the forum. Accordingly, the right to reply to Alicorn’s comments isn’t something that requires her ‘invitation’. She does not have the right to speak whatever she wishes and demand that someone in particular who disagrees with her may not reply. (Except, I suppose, in the technical sense whereby she could in principle abuse her moderation powers to prevent someone replying for any reason she chose.)
This particular play for status and control over SilasBarta should be rejected and crushed mercilessly. SilasBarta’s comment isn’t personal in nature and so does not represent the kind of social approach that fits with the subject of this thread and doesn’t get the same treatment.
The solution to not wanting to see replies by a specific individual is an ignore feature and that is one we really need here. There are plenty of people I whose comments I don’t want to see and as a bonus that which is not seen can not be fed.
Also, the grandparent is disingenuous. Presumably, Silas assumed that the request had simply expired, not that it had morphed into a different kind of request.
...as did I, frankly. I’m now commenting here after seeing this and thinking, “Oh, no, please don’t let this be about....that!”, and then finding, to my utter horror, that it was indeed about that.
Alicorn’s request was exactly that. What else could the words possibly mean?
I agree that an “ignore” feature would be very valuable for this site.
A request is not exactly an obligation. If you disagree, I request that you give me all your money.
I think my words above mean that I have uttered an unreasonable request that someone with healthy boundaries would ignore.
(Note that even if you happen to believe people have the particular rights of control over others that Alicorn has claimed your reply here would still seem to be confusing the nature of the relationship between verbal symbols and obligation.)
I have just solicited from Eliezer, and received, permission to ban further comments from Silas that reply to me.
End of thread.
This makes me lose respect for both you and Eliezer.
I don’t really enjoy bringing this up, much less in this thread, but IIRC, it used to be that SilasBarta would hound Alicorn and “follow her around” on the site (by specifically tracking her recent comments) in order to confront her. This is deeply disruptive behavior which can actually drive honest users off the site, so it’s very much not OK. No users should be getting this kind of treatment, unless they’re actually being so annoying on their own that we’d rather drive them off.
Let Silas apologize to Eliezer directly for his problem behavior, then we can think about lifting these restrictions on his commenting privileges.
Completely and utterly false.
Oh the irony. The last link in the OP specifically discusses exactly this scenario.
While the outcome for a woman targeted by a man like this is poor, the damage done to the group by all the other men staying silent (or outright supporting him) is huge. Really, this isn’t even buried in the comments, this is the whole point of the two letters discussed in that link.
I can’t speak to whether there are problems of this sort in LW meetups, but right here is our evidence of it here in LW comments.
I understand concerns about censorship, arbitrary moderation, special treatment, etc, but everyone who downvoted Alicorn and upvoted wedrifid here has also sent a message of tacit support for SilasBarta and a very clear message to any other woman here.
From my link above, edited:
The Geek Social Fallacies seem rather apt here, too.
(Edit to fix square bracket use)
By this exact scenario, do you mean something TOTALLY different? disagreeing with someone who makes public comments on an internet forum is not “creepy entitled shit” (you wouldn’t even have thought to make this accusation here if SilasBarta was female and Eliezer was the target) and even if we assume that the original situation of banning him from responding to her was totally justified (I don’t know, I haven’t read the backdrama), then it’s still ridiculous for Alicorn to respond to a thread SilasBarta is talking in without him being able to reply. I’m not trying to defend anything SilasBarta did in the past, I’m trying to defend conversation. If you have a restraining order against someone, you shouldn’t walk right up to THEM and force them to leave wherever they happen to be.
Agreed, and I think that says something interesting and useful. Symmetry is not a useful tool here.
If there’s broader interest in seeing some attempt at a rationalist view of privilege I’m keen to get whatever help is available, and take it to a separate Discussion.
I would be interested in seeing some attempt at a rationalist view of privilege, however I’m not sure that it would be welcome here; also I do think there are many advantages in trying to stick to the “no mindkiller topics” rule. Do you have a personal blog that you could post it on? If you do decide post it on LW I would recommend using the open thread, rather than the discussion or main section.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTJLFgKoWk&feature=player_detailpage#t=109s
No. It. Does. Not.
I suspect if I were LW-high-status, I could politely point out that while we’ve both argued from assertions, one of us has expanded on their assertion, and one of us has not.
Unless you mean “that linked post does not discuss LW or any of the individuals you reference, so claiming it specifically discusses exactly this scenario is trivially false”? I have no objection to curbing my hyperbole with an edit.
I take from your vehemence that your disagreement is more fundamental though. Do you have more words there you’re willing to add, here or in PM?
What is it about being low status that makes you think you are better served by making the claim passively aggressively rather than politely? Politeness usually more important when status is lacking, not less. Or do you consider this style to be even more polite than, well, pointing out politely?
As it happens I have expanded rather a lot in my original message. I chose not to expand further in response to either you or bogus because I didn’t see benefit to such engagement.
The thing in the OP is bad. Replying to public comments isn’t. That is all.
No way. Hounding users on an internet site can cause a lot of annoyance and status problems, but it’s not creepy, i.e. it entails no shared threat of bodily harm. People routinely get away with extremely weird behavior on internet groups, even though corresponding behaviors (even something as mild as a heated social confrontation) would get them shunned and ostracized, or perhaps physically assaulted and injured, in a real-world actual community where bodily harm considerations are critical. There is nothing wrong with this persay—it just takes some getting used to.
Hounding someone, even if there are no threats, can turn an online group into no fun for them.
I’m not convinced it’s true that all female fury at male inappropriate attention is based in fear of physical harm. However, large amounts of inappropriate attention can be a huge attention and energy drain—mental cpus are a limited resource.
Yes, that’s why I tend to pull out the magic words: “Please put me on your do-not-call list”. Works like a charm.
I disagree with your definition of “creepy”. However, whether we define the word that way or not, would you agree that it is behaviour worth discouraging?
It is one thing to disagree with a view that someone is expressing. It is quite another to follow that person around, disproportionately, in order to find opportunities to disagree specifically with them, (whether that’s in order to make them feel unwelcome and drive them out, or whether via some twisted logic the hounder feels it gains them dominance or even sees it as courting behaviour).
Just confirming: are you disagreeing because link posited risk of escalation to assault which I agree seems impossible in a purely online context?
I drew the analogy because it called out the toxic effects on a community, and that in many ways the toxicity is not that there was a creeper, but that there is much signalling in their support that has follow-on effects.
Assuming those claimed signalling secondary losses are correct, I don’t see anything specific to an online context that would be immune. The “risk of escalation” discussed there seems severable from its other points.
I am disagreeing because I regard what you call “risk of escalation to assault” (or, more generally: risks of bodily harm and benefits from tightly-knit social cooperation) as a critical determinant of social interaction. It is very hard to meaningfully compare real-world and online contexts, much less regard them as “the exact same scenario”.
(Indeed, I have jokingly argued before that we should totally deprecate and taboo the term “community” as referring to online social groups, since it tends to promote this very kind of ontological confusion.)
As for your question about “toxicity”, let’s just say that this particular discussion has been held already. If anything, LW has seemed to err towards taking complaints about divisive or disruptive behavior more seriously than they otherwise would, especially when outgroup status is a factor.
The obvious solution is to only ban creepy, personal comments.
Eliezer confirmed to me via PM that he did grant permission, and did it based on his trust of Alicorn.
It seems my caveats were too generous. I honestly thought you would be outright offended if I even hinted that you would do such a thing. It seems obviously the sort of thing a moderator would be careful not to do.
Silas, please document all such abuses—PM them to me.
It should be noted that all instances of comments which moderator privileges prevent reply to represent comments that I wish to see less of on lesswrong, for reasons related to filtered evidence.
Thanks. Interestingly, I was about to reply to your quoted comment with something about it being irresponsible to even insinuate that a moderator would abuse their power that way, &c. but … yeah. I just PM’d EY for confirmation. If true, this may just be “jump the shark” day.
I doubt that a rogue moderator would receive express advance approval of abusive actions. If Eliezer says that Alicorn may ban certain comments, then it is not abusive for Alicorn to ban those comments.
If Eliezer’s approval makes the action tautologically non-abusive then please act as if I substituted a different word that means something along the lines of “detrimental, innapropriate, politically ill advised, deprecated and considered ‘naughty’ by user:wedrifid”. ;)
I am stealing that.
Like it.
End of thread is something you are not in a position to enforce.
Is that literally true?
I would have said “Enforcing End of Thread would seem to be politically ill-advised in this instance”.
Well, given Eliezer’s recent actions his attitude seems to be that as the supreme rationalist leader of lesswrong he can ignore anyone else’s opinion.