= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Atheism = Untheism + Antitheism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (179)
(Not one of the downvoters.)
Byrnema needs to take a hint - at least that's why I downvote each time. I wouldn't be surprised if respondents also start getting downvoted - someone who replies to a comment already at -5 with a long, thought-out response, should not be surprised, IMO, if they get downvoted themselves.
The fact that an outcome is not, or should not be, surprising does not reliably correlate with the fact that the outcome is consistent with what we should like to see. Particularly given that people sometimes downvote for disagreement in the same way that they upvote for agreement, it doesn't seem at all appropriate to me that people responding to downvoted comments with replies that are themselves decently written and thoughtful should be downvoted too.
Unless it crosses over the line into feeding trolls. There are whole posts originally on OB that were taken over by Caledonian, because people just couldn't let him sink into the void. The point of voting something down to -5 is that it vanishes from the default eye - to put interesting discussions underneath it makes LW harder to filter well, as well as derailing the conversation.
Would it be hard to make something vanish based on an algorithm like this?
Would that be preferable? (Maybe disregard posts that have not been voted on?)
The thing is, byrnema hasn't acted like a troll in this thread. She made a single comment and since then has been responding to comments specifically directed towards her
My policy has been to mainly only respond to comments with questions since my views in this thread are unpopular. If someone does ask me a question, I perceive this as some interest in continuing the thread and I'll answer in good faith. But I do observe the karma of the comment asking the question. If its karma is positive, then this is evidence that continuing the thread is not generally unwelcome, and that the negative karma I'm receiving indicates disagreement with me rather than a desire for the thread to vanish. On the other hand, if we're both earning negative karma, this would be evidence that we're producing noise and I would try to end the discussion.
How about a bit of tolerating tolerance?
One, that post gives a position statement but no real argument. Two, actively encouraging fools can be worth punishing even if "failing to castigate" them is not. Three, replies to fools can be worth downvoting for being valueless even when they are not worth downvoting for the sake of incentives. (The reason stupid ideas get replies is not because replies to stupid ideas have the most value. The reason stupid ideas get replies is because people have things to say about them, and people feel an urge to reply when they have things to say. But we don't want this site to focus around stupid ideas. We want it to focus around smart ideas.)
It's easy when it's obvious. But what do you do with more murky cases, like PJ Eby's as-I-see-it woo? People who criticize do a public service by disambiguating whether an idea is stupid or not for those to whom it's not obvious, and you'd do well to encourage those people even if you yourself are certain enough.
Good point, I didn't think of that.