Considering that your cute comment was consistent with your other comments in this discussion, I think I can be forgiven for thinking you were serious.
Actually, which of your other comments here are just being cute?
Right, so of course I’m rather selfish in the sense of valuing things-like-myself, and so of course I buy more things for myself than I do for random strangers, and so forth. But I also know that I’m not ontologically fundamental; I’m just a conjunction of traits that can be shared by other observers to various degrees. So “I don’t throw myself off cliffs for very roughly the same reason I don’t throw other people off cliffs” is this humorously terse and indirect way of saying that identity is a scalar, not a binary attribute. (Notice that I said “very roughly the same reason” and not “exactly the same reason”; that was intentional.)
I am sad to see this comment. Perhaps you were mistaken in how clear the comment was to how broad an audience, but I think the original comment was valuable and that we lose a lot of our ability to communicate if we are too careful.
Except this wasn’t an issue of being too careful, and it definitely doesn’t count as good communication!
Z_M_Davis made a remark that was both poorly-reasoned and supportive of every other comment he left in the discussion (in trivializing the privileged state of any choice of identity). If he had been arguing against the third horn, okay, maybe it could have been read as “oh, he’s cleverly mocking a position he disagrees with”.
But then he comes back with, “I was trying to be cute.” Okay, so he’s … doing self-parody. Great—we all need to be able to laugh at ourselves. So what’s his real position, then?
Oh, you see, he was making a very subtle point about identity being scalar rather than binary (which has some as-of-yet unspecified implication for the merit of his position). And there was a hidden argument in there that allows him to see his life as no different from any others and yet still act in preference to himself. And it was obvious what distinction he was making by using the words “very roughly the same reason” instead of “exactly the same reason”.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not “how it works”. You can claim illusion of transparency issues if the assumed common knowledge is small, and you have a reasonable basis for assuming it, and your full explanation doesn’t look blatantly ad hoc.
In other words, anywhere but here.
I’m sorry to belabor the point, but yes, sometimes you just have to admit you goofed. Mistakes are okay! We all make them! But we don’t all try to say “I meant to do that”.
that allows him to see his life as no different from any others and yet still act in preference to himself
I never said it was no different. Elsewhere in the thread, I had argued that selfishness is entirely compatible with biting the third bullet. Egan’s Law.
And it was obvious what distinction he was making by using the words “very roughly the same reason” instead of “exactly the same reason”.
I disagree; if it had been obvious, I wouldn’t have had to point it out explicitly. Maybe the cognitive history would help? I had originally typed “the same reason,” but added “very roughly” before posting because I anticipated your objection. I think the original was slightly funnier, but I thought it was worth trading off a little of the humor value in exchange for making the statement more defensible when taken literally.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not “how it works”. [...] your full explanation [looks] blatantly ad hoc.
I’m curious. If what actually happened looks ad hoc to you, what’s your alternative theory? If you don’t trust what I say about what I was thinking, then what do you believe instead? You seem to think I’ve committed some error other than writing two admittedly somewhat opaque comments, but I’m not sure what it’s supposed to be.
Is there any chance that you will soon mature / calm down / whatever it is you need to do to stop being so hostile, so frequently? This is only the latest example of you coming down on people with the utmost contempt for fairly minor offenses, if they’re offenses at all. It looks increasingly like you think anyone who conducts themselves in the comments differently than you prefer ought to be beheaded or something. It’s really unpleasant to read, and I don’t think it’s likely to be effective in getting people to adopt your standards of behavior. (I can think of few posters I’m less motivated to emulate than you, as one data point.)
Edit: I downvoted the parent of this comment because I would like to see fewer comments that resemble it.
I hate to play tu quoque, but it’s rather strange of you to make this criticism considering that just a few months ago you gave a long list of very confining restrictions you wanted on commenters, enforced by bannings. Despite their best efforts, no one could discern the pattern behind what made something beyond-the-pale offensive, so you were effectively asking for unchecked, arbitrary authority to remove comments you don’t like.
You even went so far as to ask to deputize your own hand-picked cadre of posters “with their heads on right” to assist in classifying speech as unacceptable!
Yes, Alicorn, I’ve been very critical of those who claim objectivity in modding people they’re flaming, but I don’t think I’ve ever demanded the sort of arbitrary authority over the forum that you feel entitled to.
I will gladly make my criticisms more polite in the future, but I’m not going to apologize for having lower karma than if I abused the voting system the way some of you seem to.
And in the meantime, perhaps you could make it a habit of checking if the criticisms you make of others could apply to yourself. I’m not asking that you be perfect or unassailable in this respect. I’m not even asking that you try to adhere to your own standards. I just ask that you check for whether you’re living up to it.
Edit: I didn’t downvote the parent of this comment because I’m not petty like that.
I’m glad you pointed this out, because I never would have figured it out on my own. It’s subtle!
you gave a long list of very confining restrictions you wanted on commenters, enforced by bannings
I dispute “long”, “very confining”, and “bannings”. There were a handful of things on my list, and they could all be summed up as “sexism”, which is only one thing. Many commenters have no trouble abiding by the restrictions. I also don’t remember ever proposing actual bans, just social mechanisms of discouragement and some downvoting.
Despite their best efforts, no one could discern the pattern behind what made something beyond-the-pale offensive, so you were effectively asking for unchecked, arbitrary authority to remove comments you don’t like.
I dispute “their best efforts”, “no one”, “asking for unchecked, arbitrary authority”, and “don’t like”. I am not convinced that everyone tried their very best. I am convinced that many people understood me very well. I did not request any personal authority, much less the unchecked arbitrary kind. My requests had to do with comments that had a particular feature, which does not overlap completely with things I do not like.
You even went so far as to ask to deputize your own hand-picked cadre of posters “with their heads on right” to assist in classifying speech as unacceptable!
That was in response to discomfort with being implicitly given, because of my gender, the “authority” you accused me of requesting. I did not go on to actually deputize anyone.
I will gladly make my criticisms more polite in the future
Yaaaaaaaay!
I’m not going to apologize for having lower karma than if I abused the voting system the way some of you seem to.
Wait, you’re saying that some people conduct an abuse of the voting system that increases their own karma? As opposed to increasing or decreasing others’? What accusation are you making, exactly? Against whom? What’s your evidence for it? Or are you saying that if you abused the voting system, you could get others to upvote you more and downvote you less?
And in the meantime, perhaps you could make it a habit of checking if the criticisms you make of others could apply to yourself.
I don’t think, in ordinary language, it’s possible to make a habit of the same thing twice, so unfortunately, I can’t do that, anymore.
I’m not asking that you be perfect or unassailable in this respect. I’m not even asking that you try to adhere to your own standards.
I’m so glad you said so. Subtle.
Edit: I didn’t downvote the parent of this comment because I’m not petty like that.
Okay. You have my blanket approval to refrain from downvoting anything you are disinclined to downvote.
Can I elaborate? When the discussion has become polarized to the point where people will downmod pretty much any future comment on the grounds that it’s perpetuating a flamewar or they view the poster as being on “the other side”? Not a chance, I’m afraid.
I do, however, feel very honored that at least some people sympathize with me here.
I was trying to be cute.
Considering that your cute comment was consistent with your other comments in this discussion, I think I can be forgiven for thinking you were serious.
Actually, which of your other comments here are just being cute?
Right, so of course I’m rather selfish in the sense of valuing things-like-myself, and so of course I buy more things for myself than I do for random strangers, and so forth. But I also know that I’m not ontologically fundamental; I’m just a conjunction of traits that can be shared by other observers to various degrees. So “I don’t throw myself off cliffs for very roughly the same reason I don’t throw other people off cliffs” is this humorously terse and indirect way of saying that identity is a scalar, not a binary attribute. (Notice that I said “very roughly the same reason” and not “exactly the same reason”; that was intentional.)
And … you expected everyone else to get that out of your cute comment?
You know, sometimes you just have to throw in the towel and say, “Oops. I goofed.”
ETA: I’m sure that downmod was because this comment was truly unhelpful to the discussion, rather than because it made someone look bad.
Oops. I goofed.
I am sad to see this comment. Perhaps you were mistaken in how clear the comment was to how broad an audience, but I think the original comment was valuable and that we lose a lot of our ability to communicate if we are too careful.
Except this wasn’t an issue of being too careful, and it definitely doesn’t count as good communication!
Z_M_Davis made a remark that was both poorly-reasoned and supportive of every other comment he left in the discussion (in trivializing the privileged state of any choice of identity). If he had been arguing against the third horn, okay, maybe it could have been read as “oh, he’s cleverly mocking a position he disagrees with”.
But then he comes back with, “I was trying to be cute.” Okay, so he’s … doing self-parody. Great—we all need to be able to laugh at ourselves. So what’s his real position, then?
Oh, you see, he was making a very subtle point about identity being scalar rather than binary (which has some as-of-yet unspecified implication for the merit of his position). And there was a hidden argument in there that allows him to see his life as no different from any others and yet still act in preference to himself. And it was obvious what distinction he was making by using the words “very roughly the same reason” instead of “exactly the same reason”.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not “how it works”. You can claim illusion of transparency issues if the assumed common knowledge is small, and you have a reasonable basis for assuming it, and your full explanation doesn’t look blatantly ad hoc.
In other words, anywhere but here.
I’m sorry to belabor the point, but yes, sometimes you just have to admit you goofed. Mistakes are okay! We all make them! But we don’t all try to say “I meant to do that”.
See Furcas’s comment.
I never said it was no different. Elsewhere in the thread, I had argued that selfishness is entirely compatible with biting the third bullet. Egan’s Law.
I disagree; if it had been obvious, I wouldn’t have had to point it out explicitly. Maybe the cognitive history would help? I had originally typed “the same reason,” but added “very roughly” before posting because I anticipated your objection. I think the original was slightly funnier, but I thought it was worth trading off a little of the humor value in exchange for making the statement more defensible when taken literally.
I’m curious. If what actually happened looks ad hoc to you, what’s your alternative theory? If you don’t trust what I say about what I was thinking, then what do you believe instead? You seem to think I’ve committed some error other than writing two admittedly somewhat opaque comments, but I’m not sure what it’s supposed to be.
Is there any chance that you will soon mature / calm down / whatever it is you need to do to stop being so hostile, so frequently? This is only the latest example of you coming down on people with the utmost contempt for fairly minor offenses, if they’re offenses at all. It looks increasingly like you think anyone who conducts themselves in the comments differently than you prefer ought to be beheaded or something. It’s really unpleasant to read, and I don’t think it’s likely to be effective in getting people to adopt your standards of behavior. (I can think of few posters I’m less motivated to emulate than you, as one data point.)
Edit: I downvoted the parent of this comment because I would like to see fewer comments that resemble it.
I hate to play tu quoque, but it’s rather strange of you to make this criticism considering that just a few months ago you gave a long list of very confining restrictions you wanted on commenters, enforced by bannings. Despite their best efforts, no one could discern the pattern behind what made something beyond-the-pale offensive, so you were effectively asking for unchecked, arbitrary authority to remove comments you don’t like.
You even went so far as to ask to deputize your own hand-picked cadre of posters “with their heads on right” to assist in classifying speech as unacceptable!
Yes, Alicorn, I’ve been very critical of those who claim objectivity in modding people they’re flaming, but I don’t think I’ve ever demanded the sort of arbitrary authority over the forum that you feel entitled to.
I will gladly make my criticisms more polite in the future, but I’m not going to apologize for having lower karma than if I abused the voting system the way some of you seem to.
And in the meantime, perhaps you could make it a habit of checking if the criticisms you make of others could apply to yourself. I’m not asking that you be perfect or unassailable in this respect. I’m not even asking that you try to adhere to your own standards. I just ask that you check for whether you’re living up to it.
Edit: I didn’t downvote the parent of this comment because I’m not petty like that.
I’m glad you pointed this out, because I never would have figured it out on my own. It’s subtle!
I dispute “long”, “very confining”, and “bannings”. There were a handful of things on my list, and they could all be summed up as “sexism”, which is only one thing. Many commenters have no trouble abiding by the restrictions. I also don’t remember ever proposing actual bans, just social mechanisms of discouragement and some downvoting.
I dispute “their best efforts”, “no one”, “asking for unchecked, arbitrary authority”, and “don’t like”. I am not convinced that everyone tried their very best. I am convinced that many people understood me very well. I did not request any personal authority, much less the unchecked arbitrary kind. My requests had to do with comments that had a particular feature, which does not overlap completely with things I do not like.
That was in response to discomfort with being implicitly given, because of my gender, the “authority” you accused me of requesting. I did not go on to actually deputize anyone.
Yaaaaaaaay!
Wait, you’re saying that some people conduct an abuse of the voting system that increases their own karma? As opposed to increasing or decreasing others’? What accusation are you making, exactly? Against whom? What’s your evidence for it? Or are you saying that if you abused the voting system, you could get others to upvote you more and downvote you less?
I don’t think, in ordinary language, it’s possible to make a habit of the same thing twice, so unfortunately, I can’t do that, anymore.
I’m so glad you said so. Subtle.
Okay. You have my blanket approval to refrain from downvoting anything you are disinclined to downvote.
Thanks: when I make my future posts more mature and less hostile, I can use this as a guide.
Since at least one person seems to agree with you, I’m genuinely curious now. Assuming I’m correct in detecting sarcasm there, can you elaborate?
Can I elaborate? When the discussion has become polarized to the point where people will downmod pretty much any future comment on the grounds that it’s perpetuating a flamewar or they view the poster as being on “the other side”? Not a chance, I’m afraid.
I do, however, feel very honored that at least some people sympathize with me here.
It is not the case that the only way to share information with me is by publicly commenting on Less Wrong.
Yes, you would like to see fewer comments that have “SilasBarta” at the top.