I am frankly amazed that so simple and evident an assertion should receive so many negative votes. (Not surprised, merely amazed. It would have to violate my expectations to be a surprise.)
Can I assert that Santa Claus does not exist and cannot be rationally considered to exist without receiving similar votes, or do I need to review the demonstration of why such is the case to avoid the wrath of the voters?
A more pertinent question: why should any of us care about negative votes when they’re given out so poorly?
I didn’t vote the post in question up or down, but I would speculate that it was received negatively simply because the tone came across as rude.
There’s sometimes a tendency in rationalists to observe (accurately) that our society overemphasizes politeness over frankness, and then to take it upon ourselves to correct this. Unfortunately, being human, we tend to do this selectively: by being ruder to others, sometimes to an overcompensating extent, while still reacting poorly to the rudeness of others. At least, that’s an issue I’ve had in the past. Your mileage may vary.
My personal take on it is that keeping to the standard level of etiquette is less trouble than the alternative, especially when trying to function in a conversational setting with a wide range of people. The metaphor of apparently unnecessary politeness as a “social lubricant” of sorts has been helpful to me in this regard.
But as I said, I’m only guessing here. I think you’d be within your rights to simply stop caring about the votes you get, be they positive or negative. Just be aware that you may be giving up on useful feedback information that way.
There’s sometimes a tendency in rationalists to observe (accurately) that our society overemphasizes politeness over frankness, and then to take it upon ourselves to correct this.
Great comment, agreed on all points. One of my mottos is “As polite as possible; as rude as necessary”.
I can’t see anything in Annoyance’s writings that could not be conveyed with less rudeness except their urge to ensure we all understand the contempt they hold us all in.
I like that motto a lot. Another one that bears on this is Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.”
In the case of wanting to deemphasize politeness, this would suggest being more lenient in the amount of rudeness you allow from others, but not increasing it in your output. Sort of the principle behind Crocker’s Rules.
My downvote (along with most others I presume) is not about agreement, but about whether you are adding anything useful to the discussion. Argument by repeated assertion is not supposed to be a staple of rationalist discourse. Either it’s worth your time to provide some links to an actual argument or it isn’t.
Do you really expect points for needing to get in the last word?
Your statement was simply wrong, by most commonly used definitions of sanity. Try pleading insanity in court based purely on a belief in god. Your comment also added nothing of value to the discussion.
The rational thing to do when you get downvoted would be to at least consider the possibility that your own judgement is at fault rather than assuming it is proof that negative votes are given out without good reason.
The assumption of both above comments is that there can be multiple commonly-used definitions of a word. Annoyance is using one of the commonly-used definitions that doesn’t fit into the ‘most’ above. He asserts that the other definitions are not only incorrect but insane, and I think this answers your question—a definition can be incorrect in the case that it is insane. Though I think calling a definition ‘insane’ is an odd use of the word.
I think you have to remember that saying something obvious is not the same as saying something useful. If someone came by and said “It is rational to believe in Santa Claus” it does not help to say “No it isn’t. Sorry, can’t elaborate.”
I would have to write an entire post—and a quite lengthy one at that—to do justice to the demonstration, and it’s already common knowledge.
If repeating something short and simple that’s already been said is so undesirable, why in the world would I wish to post something large, complex, and cumbrous that’s already widely known? Why would any of you wish me to do so?
Sorry, I deleted my comment because two other people basically said the same thing. I was hoping to get it out before you responded. My bad.
I am not necessarily saying I would rather you post a huge wall of text. Personally, I would just link to a good summary of the material and say, “This has been covered before.”
Another way to respond would be to play coy and ask for more details. This, at the very least, encourages more dialogue.
Another solution is to just not respond at all.
None of these are particularly fun, but I like to think you can at least avoid the negative response from the community.
I am frankly amazed that so simple and evident an assertion should receive so many negative votes. (Not surprised, merely amazed. It would have to violate my expectations to be a surprise.)
Can I assert that Santa Claus does not exist and cannot be rationally considered to exist without receiving similar votes, or do I need to review the demonstration of why such is the case to avoid the wrath of the voters?
A more pertinent question: why should any of us care about negative votes when they’re given out so poorly?
Downvoted because it adds nothing to what you said before. Repetition of bald assertions, even true ones, is one habit we want to avoid.
I didn’t vote the post in question up or down, but I would speculate that it was received negatively simply because the tone came across as rude.
There’s sometimes a tendency in rationalists to observe (accurately) that our society overemphasizes politeness over frankness, and then to take it upon ourselves to correct this. Unfortunately, being human, we tend to do this selectively: by being ruder to others, sometimes to an overcompensating extent, while still reacting poorly to the rudeness of others. At least, that’s an issue I’ve had in the past. Your mileage may vary.
My personal take on it is that keeping to the standard level of etiquette is less trouble than the alternative, especially when trying to function in a conversational setting with a wide range of people. The metaphor of apparently unnecessary politeness as a “social lubricant” of sorts has been helpful to me in this regard.
But as I said, I’m only guessing here. I think you’d be within your rights to simply stop caring about the votes you get, be they positive or negative. Just be aware that you may be giving up on useful feedback information that way.
Great comment, agreed on all points. One of my mottos is “As polite as possible; as rude as necessary”.
I can’t see anything in Annoyance’s writings that could not be conveyed with less rudeness except their urge to ensure we all understand the contempt they hold us all in.
I like that motto a lot. Another one that bears on this is Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.”
In the case of wanting to deemphasize politeness, this would suggest being more lenient in the amount of rudeness you allow from others, but not increasing it in your output. Sort of the principle behind Crocker’s Rules.
That comment could equally well have gone in “The ideas you’re not ready to post,” come to think of it.
And, then again, some people just enjoy being obnoxious.
My downvote (along with most others I presume) is not about agreement, but about whether you are adding anything useful to the discussion. Argument by repeated assertion is not supposed to be a staple of rationalist discourse. Either it’s worth your time to provide some links to an actual argument or it isn’t.
Do you really expect points for needing to get in the last word?
Your statement was simply wrong, by most commonly used definitions of sanity. Try pleading insanity in court based purely on a belief in god. Your comment also added nothing of value to the discussion.
The rational thing to do when you get downvoted would be to at least consider the possibility that your own judgement is at fault rather than assuming it is proof that negative votes are given out without good reason.
“Your statement was simply wrong, by most commonly used definitions of sanity.”
True, but not useful. The most commonly-used definitions of sanity are not only incorrect but insane.
“Your comment also added nothing of value to the discussion.”
That’s very useful feedback, indeed. Now I appreciate your thoughts and votes much more accurately.
How can a definition be incorrect?
If you find the common usage incoherent or otherwise not useful, don’t use it. To do otherwise is to lie.
The assumption of both above comments is that there can be multiple commonly-used definitions of a word. Annoyance is using one of the commonly-used definitions that doesn’t fit into the ‘most’ above. He asserts that the other definitions are not only incorrect but insane, and I think this answers your question—a definition can be incorrect in the case that it is insane. Though I think calling a definition ‘insane’ is an odd use of the word.
I think you have to remember that saying something obvious is not the same as saying something useful. If someone came by and said “It is rational to believe in Santa Claus” it does not help to say “No it isn’t. Sorry, can’t elaborate.”
I would have to write an entire post—and a quite lengthy one at that—to do justice to the demonstration, and it’s already common knowledge.
If repeating something short and simple that’s already been said is so undesirable, why in the world would I wish to post something large, complex, and cumbrous that’s already widely known? Why would any of you wish me to do so?
Sorry, I deleted my comment because two other people basically said the same thing. I was hoping to get it out before you responded. My bad.
I am not necessarily saying I would rather you post a huge wall of text. Personally, I would just link to a good summary of the material and say, “This has been covered before.”
Another way to respond would be to play coy and ask for more details. This, at the very least, encourages more dialogue.
Another solution is to just not respond at all.
None of these are particularly fun, but I like to think you can at least avoid the negative response from the community.