“Anyone who says otherwise is lying” is pretty judgmental and hostile. And wrong.
We really try to maintain a culture of assuming good intent on LW. The claim that nobody might legitimately misunderstand how the law would be enforced is quite a strong assumption about people’s intelligence and the time they spend to understand things before commenting.
I think this phrasing is better suited to the broader internet where people start arguments instead of working together to understand the truth.
It is convention in fields outside of, say, math, for statements to be considered substantially true despite the possibility of exceedingly rare/implausible exceptions. And I accuse you of knowing this and making this isolated demand for my claim to be true without any conceivable exception (which I freely admit it isn’t) because you don’t like it.
working together to understand the truth.
Do you believe this to be a reasonable characterization of the discussion on LW about SB-1047?
I absolutely do think LW at large is trying to understand the truth about that bill, yes. I’m sure there are some exceptions, but I’d be surprised if there were many LWers willing to actively deceive people about its consequences—LWers typically really hate lying.
Your statement is not just technically incorrect, but mostly incorrect. Incompetence explains many more wrong statement than malice. I’m not going to change your mind on that right now, but it’s something I think about an awful lot, and I think the evidence strongly supports it.
More importantly, your statement sounds mean, which is enough to not want it on LW. People being rude and not extending the benefit of the doubt leads to a community that argues instead of collaboratively seeking the truth. Arguing has huge but subtle downsides for reaching the truth—motivated reasoning from the combative relationships in arguments leads people to solidify their beliefs instead of changing them as the evidence suggests.
I believe the “about LW” page requests that we extend benefit of the doubt and be not just civil, but polite. If not, the community at large still does this, and it seems to work.
This has nothing to do with my support or lack of SBb-1047; I don’t even know if I do support it, because I find such legislation’s first-order effects to be pointless. My comment is merely about truth and how to obtain it. Being mean is not how you get at the truth.
“Anyone who says otherwise is lying” is pretty judgmental and hostile. And wrong.
We really try to maintain a culture of assuming good intent on LW. The claim that nobody might legitimately misunderstand how the law would be enforced is quite a strong assumption about people’s intelligence and the time they spend to understand things before commenting.
I think this phrasing is better suited to the broader internet where people start arguments instead of working together to understand the truth.
It is convention in fields outside of, say, math, for statements to be considered substantially true despite the possibility of exceedingly rare/implausible exceptions. And I accuse you of knowing this and making this isolated demand for my claim to be true without any conceivable exception (which I freely admit it isn’t) because you don’t like it.
Do you believe this to be a reasonable characterization of the discussion on LW about SB-1047?
I absolutely do think LW at large is trying to understand the truth about that bill, yes. I’m sure there are some exceptions, but I’d be surprised if there were many LWers willing to actively deceive people about its consequences—LWers typically really hate lying.
Your statement is not just technically incorrect, but mostly incorrect. Incompetence explains many more wrong statement than malice. I’m not going to change your mind on that right now, but it’s something I think about an awful lot, and I think the evidence strongly supports it.
More importantly, your statement sounds mean, which is enough to not want it on LW. People being rude and not extending the benefit of the doubt leads to a community that argues instead of collaboratively seeking the truth. Arguing has huge but subtle downsides for reaching the truth—motivated reasoning from the combative relationships in arguments leads people to solidify their beliefs instead of changing them as the evidence suggests.
I believe the “about LW” page requests that we extend benefit of the doubt and be not just civil, but polite. If not, the community at large still does this, and it seems to work.
This has nothing to do with my support or lack of SBb-1047; I don’t even know if I do support it, because I find such legislation’s first-order effects to be pointless. My comment is merely about truth and how to obtain it. Being mean is not how you get at the truth.