Alicorn comments on Open Thread: October 2009 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: gwern 01 October 2009 12:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (425)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 19 October 2009 01:04:34AM *  2 points [-]

The karma is only a secondary concern. It bothers me more than I would like it to that I am seen as suddenly and inexplicably turning irrational whenever stuff about -isms comes up. This is germane here in particular since to continue this conversation, I'd have to talk about (gasp) feeeeeeeeelings.

Comment author: Jack 19 October 2009 04:09:21AM 1 point [-]

The comment that claimed you turn irrational has zero karma. My response that it was an ungenerous interpretation is +2. So I'm not sure you should conclude that a significant number of people see you as turning uniquely irrational, but obviously there is no need for you to say anything you don't want to.

Comment author: Alicorn 19 October 2009 12:58:44PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think it's that many people (although I got the same reaction over the gender kerfluffle; it's not just this one-time thing). But it's enough to make me uncomfortable.

Comment author: rwallace 19 October 2009 02:06:46AM 0 points [-]

What's inexplicable about it? We all turn at least somewhat irrational whenever stuff about -isms comes up. It's human nature. Politics is the mind killer and all. That's why discussion of contemporary politics is discouraged here, or at least was last I heard.

Comment author: Alicorn 19 October 2009 02:11:20AM *  1 point [-]

Okay, perhaps I'm seen as explicably losing my mind. That's not a whole lot better. I don't like to have conversations with people who start out presuming me insane, even if they have a lovely narrative about exactly how it happened.

Comment author: cousin_it 19 October 2009 01:11:52PM *  -1 points [-]

You're entitled to your emotional reactions, up to and including stonewalling unfavored commenters, but I see this behavior as a blatant self-defense mechanism for your beliefs. Likewise a theist could reject LW's arguments for atheism because oooh those evil people say I'm crazy and it's making me uncomfortable.

Comment author: Alicorn 19 October 2009 01:22:23PM 2 points [-]

I don't think I'd characterize calling one's interlocutor crazy as "evil" so much as "mean". I wouldn't expect my theist friends to want to talk to me - about anything, really, much less religion - if I started out presuming them insane because they disagree with me! For the same reason, I don't blame the theists I know from steering clear of this site. It's a hostile environment for them, and they have no reason to enter any hostile environment, including this one. Similarly, I have precious little interest in having nonessential exchanges with or near people who have announced their intention to be mean to me. Calling it a "self-defense mechanism" looks like you think I need some reason to refrain from having conversations with or around you and those who agree with you, apart from predicting that they'll be unfun.

Comment author: thomblake 20 October 2009 03:47:16PM 1 point [-]

Indeed, categorizing one's enemies as "insane" seems like a bad epistemic move - a bit closer to deciding they're evil mutants.