Have you done transcription? it’s a pain in the ass. Put this video on while you make breakfast, if you want, or don’t watch or read it at all. I put it here because I thought you’d find it interesting; if listening to a video while you cook food is too much for you, please don’t trouble yourself for my sake.
Being blunt is not the same thing as being hostile, especially not if it’s in response to a question.
You asked whether a description would be enough to make the post valuable to people on this site. katydee thought that it would not make it reasonable for him, and explained why. You are of course under no obligation to cater to his wishes in particular if you deem them unreasonable, just like he is under no obligation to check out your video if he doesn’t consider it a worthwhile use of his time. But although he could have been a little less blunt, he never attacked you directly and merely explained his own feelings on the subject.
So my video is a waste of his time because it lacks description (which I added when somebody who was polite pointed out my error), but it is worth three comments decrying it, without an actual viewing?
Don’t take those kids of statements on LessWrong personally. Discourse on LessWrong can be blunt, but people generally are honest and don’t play that many games. I find the trade off worth it.
Check out my comment history I’m an evil “racist” too. I don’t get down voted though.
Oh I’m sure the downvotes for the main articles are almost entirely from newbs to the topic who are shocked SHOCKED to see this argument. And people who are thinking “this is true but I can’t have this on LW main it looks bad to non-LWers!”. And now that its in negative numbers people will dog pile on it (happens to most)… and that isn’t so much your fault (though I guarantee you you would have had a better response in discussion).
But in some of the later comments about the meta level you really did responded badly. You don’t seem to be currently calibrated to what kind of style LW posters want. Don’t worry it gets back to you after a while. (^_^)
You don’t seem to be currently calibrated to what kind of style LW posters want. Don’t worry it gets back to you after a while.
You seem to believe that aurini wants to have their comments upvoted, and is simply failing to implement that desire successfully. Have I correctly understood you?
If so, I’m curious as to what makes you conclude that. It seems unlikely to me.
Past behaviour is a excellent predictor of future behaviour. He used to be a good faith participant (check out his early comment history) on LessWrong and has obviously read at least some of the sequences and occasionally cite them outside of LW.
LessWronger posting norms and style are really different from some flame heavy parts of the internet. It can be hard to adjust.
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
The mind truly is the sexy organ, even for a playa like myself.
I may have to trust you to post the videos full of Truth in the future; I have three more posts, tops, before I burn out of karma. You must post them, while decrying me as a monster! That is how the fates say it must be.
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
The mind truly is the sexy organ, even for a playa like myself.
This sort of comment reinforces negative stereotypes pretty badly. There’s a perception that people who self-identify as “race realists” are often simply smart versions of “bros” and have generally sexist attitudes. How much of that is due to halo effects and tribal allegiance issues isn’t clear. But this sort of comment really doesn’t help matters.
I may have to trust you to post the videos full of Truth
Capitalizing truth is never a good sign. If you feel a need to do it, it may be a good moment to step back from the keyboard and think carefully about what you believe, why you believe it, and how to most effectively communicate those reasons to people who may not agree.
Remind me, JoshuaZ—who is the Pretntious Writer who captilizes Truth and Many Other Words, and has subcribers… and who is the pretentious prick who comments upon standards of writing behaviour?
You can burn in hell; GLaDOS is a bloody lady, and sexy as the day is long. She has class and internet bearing—something you clearly lack. I also suspect that you do not own a motorcycle. If you did, you’d be giving me an internet high-five, bro, and we’d be rocking out on skype, like True Men. Instead you argue with me about something that has no bearing to the topic at hand.
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
This is cool because this started out as my RP account, but if I was posting this under my real name or different nick comments like that would be creepy.
Note not everyone may get the reference so I suggest you stop. (~_^)
I feel I was no more hostile than—to use your argument—someone judging a competent black doctor as incompetent thanks to their priors about affirmative action.
Um, at the risk of re-igniting passions… you replied to a link I posted, which started a rather heated argument that attracted other commenters. (Unless you remember and your question was meant as an insult.)
My point is simply that, were you to provide an expanded description that might provide compelling reasons to watch your video, I would be more inclined to look into it—but a link submitted without context is extremely unlikely to get my attention.
Then send GLaDOS $5 and have her transcript it.
Have you done transcription? it’s a pain in the ass. Put this video on while you make breakfast, if you want, or don’t watch or read it at all. I put it here because I thought you’d find it interesting; if listening to a video while you cook food is too much for you, please don’t trouble yourself for my sake.
Downvoted for using a hostile tone to reply to honest and reasonable feedback.
Downvoted for calling a hostile response to a hostile response hostile.
Being blunt is not the same thing as being hostile, especially not if it’s in response to a question.
You asked whether a description would be enough to make the post valuable to people on this site. katydee thought that it would not make it reasonable for him, and explained why. You are of course under no obligation to cater to his wishes in particular if you deem them unreasonable, just like he is under no obligation to check out your video if he doesn’t consider it a worthwhile use of his time. But although he could have been a little less blunt, he never attacked you directly and merely explained his own feelings on the subject.
So my video is a waste of his time because it lacks description (which I added when somebody who was polite pointed out my error), but it is worth three comments decrying it, without an actual viewing?
Please; I was not the asshole in that situation.
Don’t take those kids of statements on LessWrong personally. Discourse on LessWrong can be blunt, but people generally are honest and don’t play that many games. I find the trade off worth it.
GLaDOS, I just outed myself as an evil racist; LW’s hate is a warm glow. :)
Check out my comment history I’m an evil “racist” too. I don’t get down voted though.
Oh I’m sure the downvotes for the main articles are almost entirely from newbs to the topic who are shocked SHOCKED to see this argument. And people who are thinking “this is true but I can’t have this on LW main it looks bad to non-LWers!”. And now that its in negative numbers people will dog pile on it (happens to most)… and that isn’t so much your fault (though I guarantee you you would have had a better response in discussion).
But in some of the later comments about the meta level you really did responded badly. You don’t seem to be currently calibrated to what kind of style LW posters want. Don’t worry it gets back to you after a while. (^_^)
You seem to believe that aurini wants to have their comments upvoted, and is simply failing to implement that desire successfully. Have I correctly understood you?
If so, I’m curious as to what makes you conclude that. It seems unlikely to me.
Past behaviour is a excellent predictor of future behaviour. He used to be a good faith participant (check out his early comment history) on LessWrong and has obviously read at least some of the sequences and occasionally cite them outside of LW.
LessWronger posting norms and style are really different from some flame heavy parts of the internet. It can be hard to adjust.
Mm. Fair enough… thanks for the explanation.
He has apologized, I think I may have been right after all.
(nods) The comment you link to decreases my confidence that aurini was intentionally setting out to violate community norms (though not below 50%).
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
The mind truly is the sexy organ, even for a playa like myself.
I may have to trust you to post the videos full of Truth in the future; I have three more posts, tops, before I burn out of karma. You must post them, while decrying me as a monster! That is how the fates say it must be.
This sort of comment reinforces negative stereotypes pretty badly. There’s a perception that people who self-identify as “race realists” are often simply smart versions of “bros” and have generally sexist attitudes. How much of that is due to halo effects and tribal allegiance issues isn’t clear. But this sort of comment really doesn’t help matters.
Capitalizing truth is never a good sign. If you feel a need to do it, it may be a good moment to step back from the keyboard and think carefully about what you believe, why you believe it, and how to most effectively communicate those reasons to people who may not agree.
Remind me, JoshuaZ—who is the Pretntious Writer who captilizes Truth and Many Other Words, and has subcribers… and who is the pretentious prick who comments upon standards of writing behaviour?
You can burn in hell; GLaDOS is a bloody lady, and sexy as the day is long. She has class and internet bearing—something you clearly lack. I also suspect that you do not own a motorcycle. If you did, you’d be giving me an internet high-five, bro, and we’d be rocking out on skype, like True Men. Instead you argue with me about something that has no bearing to the topic at hand.
I detect someone who seeks reputation points.
This is cool because this started out as my RP account, but if I was posting this under my real name or different nick comments like that would be creepy.
Note not everyone may get the reference so I suggest you stop. (~_^)
I feel I was no more hostile than—to use your argument—someone judging a competent black doctor as incompetent thanks to their priors about affirmative action.
That’s rassist!
Also, far less rational than you ought to pride yourself on being; but I didn’t expect rationality from LessWrong, so I’m not disappointed!
That’s not how you reacted during our unfortunate altercation on gender relations ethics!
And who are you again?
Um, at the risk of re-igniting passions… you replied to a link I posted, which started a rather heated argument that attracted other commenters. (Unless you remember and your question was meant as an insult.)
A hostile response to a hostile response is hostile.
My point is simply that, were you to provide an expanded description that might provide compelling reasons to watch your video, I would be more inclined to look into it—but a link submitted without context is extremely unlikely to get my attention.
GLaDOS said the same, but politely. I expanded the description.
You could have been nicer.