= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on How to think like a quantum monadologist - 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 (266)
'Talking to' is an entirely different thing to replying to comments that happen to be made by you. If people are making statements here that others disagree with then those others should be free to make that disagreement.
Whether online or off, engaging personally is different to contributing to a group discourse.
Absolutely, and very effectively. Silas's naivety when it comes to this kind of game helped. Apart from being somewhat disagreement prone, he tried to be conciliatory when you were going for the kill and was reckless when he was vulnerable to attack and needed to be impeccable.
For what it is worth I think you are being completely sincere in considering yourself a victim here. But I am less appreciative of sincerity than I once was.
I believe that you miss some of the background here. A while ago there were a bunch of posts trying to set "the seduction community" up as a great example of rationality. Alicorn and some other women objected to the way that women were treated as objects to be aquired, studied and manipulated in various ways. The discussion became somewhat heated. All the women who were involved except Alicorn, and at least one of the guys who started it, have since left LessWrong, or changed their usernames. And SilasBarta has been picking on Alicorn ever since.
False. Some of them comment less frequently, and I was worried myself for a time, but the people you refer to continue to comment here.
No. Just, no. I have refuted arguments she's made that I have found in error, sometimes harshly. I have applauded points she's made. I have come to her defense, even in contravention of my own interests.
I've never "picked on" Alicorn; she just has a tendency to completely misinterpret what I say or take refutations too personally.
Your framing of events here is quite strong, to the point of bordering on falsehood.
Are you saying that there were no men present who shared that objection, or that those who did weren't real men? Your statement implies one or the other.
Edit: I do not mean to imply any character flaw on your part - merely to illuminate the poor wording.
(Not true)
My apologies for being unclear.
There were several men who supported the objections. If I don't misjudge/misremember there were about an equal number of men on either side of that discussion. None of the men have been harassed later, and AFAIK none of the men who were on the side with the women have left.
Your statement, once again, has clear implications which I would contradict were they explicit.
SilasBarta had annoyed me in the past. It became irritating enough that I took the measure I did after the gender kerfluffle, but while the kerfluffle certainly did not help, it wasn't the sole cause.