orange

Karma: 17

orange 13 Apr 2010 3:25 UTC
0 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
I do that on purpose. But I’ll fix it.

orange 13 Apr 2010 3:23 UTC
2 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
“My opinion is that LW shouldn’t be for PUA/beauty tips or how-to’s. But it would be appropriate to discuss why these methods work, under what conditions you’d want to resist them, and what countermeasures you can take. (And I suspect some don’t even want it to go this far, or want to restrict PUA more than beauty.)”

To clarify, I was promoting discussing PUA under this context, not FROM THE LENS of a working PUA. Certainly Pickup Artistry should never be actively encouraged on this site—there are way too many sites that handle this better than this one. But to discuss PUA from an observer’s lens—discuss its merits and its pitfalls—I don’t see why this type of discussion would drive individuals away unless the majority of the discussion turned into nonsense.

I think discussing PUA is going to attract a lot of individuals, and the right kind of individual. As long as the community continues to discuss this highly controversial topic in a rationalist manner, then other would-be rationalists are going to be find that unique and hopefully interesting. It’s when controversial topics are viewed in a rationalist light that you truly shine a beacon declaring, “We are mindful. Not mindless.”

If the discussion truly devolves then it should be a banned topic.

orange 13 Apr 2010 3:00 UTC
3 points
in reply to: Nanani’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
The site lost my response; bugger.

I have to object to your first objection there. What can you claim to know about the female sex in general solely based on the fact that you yourself are female? You are just a data point. So, regardless of your gender, I think it’s fairly legitimate to say, “You need to realize something about females.”

That something—whether females identify with their own gender more strongly than males—is absolutely verifiable using scientific channels. The only thing that may be objectionable about my statements—is if they’re flat-out wrong.

But to remedy that is easy—just find the truth.

Your objections threw me off. I could understand saying, “That hasn’t been verified.” But to say, “I’m a female, so you shouldn’t lecture me on females”—something struck me as wrong about that. Can we agree on this or am I falling for bad logic?

As for the last statement, I respect your belief that gender issues interfere with your goals. But the way you stated it in the original post was judgmental. You could have just presented a rational case for it. Or is that not the way things run around here? Is it better to insult everyone that doesn’t think the way you do?

orange 9 Apr 2010 4:56 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Tuesday_Next’s comment on: Welcome to Less Wrong!
Your ideas on free will are basically what I came up with too when I was younger. That’s kind of comforting.

orange 9 Apr 2010 4:21 UTC
0 points
in reply to: RobinZ’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
Valid concern. I don’t know how to get more people active, but it couldn’t hurt to get more people aware of this community.

The more people you attract, the more likely some percentage of those people will continue to becoming active, contributing members. Everyone starts out as a visitor. Only a few of those end up becoming regulars. If you get more visitors, your regulars proportionally should rise.

orange 9 Apr 2010 4:12 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Nanani’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
Please explain your second statement exactly. I don’t see why you have this objection.

orange 3 Apr 2010 20:30 UTC
7 points
in reply to: divia’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
Personally, I think controversy is more interesting than not. The internet keeps proving this over and over again. So if you want to attract more females, KEEP TALKING ABOUT THEM.

Getting offended is one way to get started on a rationalist path because it evokes an emotion. It evokes an inner-conflict. Which can result to greater self-understanding. Offending people is fine. Since it reflects more badly on the offensive person than on the offended person. It might even reflect badly on this community as a whole, but hey, if it gets people to start thinking, what’s so bad? If it gets women to understand something about themselves? What’s so bad?

However I would try to balance it out by ALSO examining men in such a way. There’s a lot of literature on PUA, and it is actively discussed here. Why not just find proven methods for attracting men and discuss them also? In a rationalist fashion, of course. If it offends the men on the site, then… all the better. Men need a wake-up call, too.

orange 3 Apr 2010 19:51 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Nanani’s comment on: Of Exclusionary Speech and Gender Politics
It might be considerate to realize that females do have a legitimate reason for why they are more salient to their own sex and issues regarding gender. More so than males. This is because society treats male-ness as the norm versus female-ness, which is treated as special. As a result, many females become VERY AWARE of the fact they are female, have female genitalia, are treated “differently” because of their sex. Perhaps a lot of this awareness is in fact, subconscious. But none-the-less, this results in a stronger identification with their own gender. Whereas males have less problem disassociating with their own genitalia.

Becoming a good rationalist is a journey one takes, not something one “is” or “isn’t”. It is insulting to simply say “you’re not a good rationalist if...” and then hold everyone to these standards.

I’m not saying your end-goal isn’t correct, but the way to attract people to a site like this is not to BEGIN by assuming everyone is a “good rationalist” but that more people start out as “bad rationalists” and attracting them might take different approaches than what is rationally optimal or acceptable to current members.