= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
kodos96 comments on On Enjoying Disagreeable Company - 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 (243)
My understanding of your agreement with Alicorn was that you were allowed to comment on each other's top level posts, just not address each other directly. It may be that my understanding is incorrect (I don't really care). The important part of what I said was the conditional, "if such failures actually existed." If you're pulling your claims of hypocrisy out of your ass, then there is no appropriate place for them.
And how's that working out for you?
Well, it is indeed incorrect. The agreement's not supposed to make sense -- I found out the hard way what Alicorn is demanding.
Well, that's subjective. If I have a good-faith suspicion of Alicorn not following this advice when in critical cases where it actually matters, surely, it obviously belongs here. Except that to jimrandomh, it obviously does. Which of these two contradictory obvious positions is right? And what inference should I draw from this kafkaesqueness?
<sigh>... I don't know how many more ways we can rephrase this till you get it: her advice is solely about how, not when or whether, to go about liking someone. So even if everything you're saying is absolutely true, it does not refute the claims in the article.
Our positions aren't contradictory. His is that you should refrain from commenting at all. Mine is that as long as you're making personal accusations irrelevant to the OP, you should refrain from commenting. Since, in this case, you're making personal accusations irrelevant to the OP, both our positions recommend the same course of action.