'oy, girls on lw, want to get together some time?'

MBlume

2:45:24 PM Katja Grace: The main thing that puts me off in online dating profiles is lack of ambition to save the world
2:45:35 PM Katja Grace: Or do anything much
2:48:03 PM Michael Blume: *nods*
2:48:07 PM Michael Blume: this is indeed a problem
2:57:55 PM Katja Grace: Maybe there is a dating site for smart ambitious nerds somewhere
2:58:25 PM Katja Grace: Need to set up lw extension perhaps
2:59:02 PM Michael Blume: haha, yes ^^
3:00:40 PM Katja Grace: Plenty of discussion on why few girls, how to get girls, nobody ever says 'oy, girls on lw, want to get together some time?'
3:01:14 PM Michael Blume: somebody really should say that
3:01:34 PM Michael Blume: hell, I'm tempted to just copy that IM into a top-level post and click 'submit'
3:01:48 PM Katja Grace: Haha dare you to

I do explain your failures. I explain your failures in detail. What I do not do, is commit unbounded time to answering your (or anyone's) followup questions when I believe I have already answered them and/or the benefits no longer exceed the costs (ETC).

I believe that modding me down for a calm, honest, non-inflammatory statement of my opinion of you, is not something a mature individual would do. (Remember, it was the "deeming you in error" that I said was common, not "you being in error in some more objective or universal sense".)

(While we're on the topic, I seem to remember a long flamewar in which you also stopped giving additional clarification to those who asked what their error was -- specifically, how to know if they're being sexist. Keep in mind, no one who asked for help ever got a good enough model of what you count as sexism to generate the same answers that you did -- note the "If I were rich I'd have a gardener" problem.)

Just for the record, there actually are instances when I have regarded your comments highly. Just two examples off the top of my head.

If and when you make comments with merit, I mod you up, without regard for any stupidity you might have revealed in the past. I might read your remarks a bit less, but if I see one that's good, I mod it up. I do not, however, downmod you simply for saying something that's not "on my side" -- in fact, I recognize my own biases in flamewars and avoid modding when it's likely to negatively influence my judgment.

If you call that "not liking you", that just means you can't distinguish liking a person from liking an argument.

If and when you make comments with merit, I mod you up, without regard for any stupidity you might have revealed in the past.

Note: as someone who is mainly on your "side," use of terms like "stupidity" and "your failures" seem unnecessarily hostile and undermine the emphasis you place on separating people and arguments.

-2Alicorn17y

You know what? That looks a lot like how I feel about you. I frequently deem you in error, but sometimes you say something I like and I've occasionally upvoted you. Believe it or not, in spite of that, I don't like you. Your defense is therefore hardly airtight: it's possible to sometimes upvote a person while disliking them. So either you're hedging to avoid having to admit disliking me (you haven't claimed not to dislike me, you've only said that's not the "issue" and that I don't have the right data to assume it), or there's some additional phenomenon going on besides our voting behavior, or we're talking past each other and mean different things by "like", "don't like", and "dislike".