= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
orthonormal comments on Newtonmas Meetup, 12/25/2010 - 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 (99)
I think the discussion has gone off the rails here by arguing about the content of your opinions. It's almost certainly the signaling properties rather than the content that caused the initial downvotes. I predict that you're perfectly capable of writing a well-received animal-rights post here, and that this would perhaps get a few people to change to vegetarianism. (Contra Eliezer, you could even begin such a post by stating that eating meat goes against the proper extrapolation of our rationalist values, and still get upvoted.)
What you did here (from my perspective) was to overtly signal your moral superiority to the rest of us, in a context that wasn't devoted to this discussion. That behavior is characteristically downvoted to oblivion here (with a few exceptions- occasionally someone manages to do this wittily or trigger the right applause light; we're still human!).
I approve of this group norm- it leads to discussions with more substance than signaling. I hope you understand that we don't mean any disrespect to your ideas (well, most of us don't), and we'd be open to hearing your case on the issue.
Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate it.
It was not my intention to signal my moral superiority to members of this community, many of whom I highly respect both morally and intellectually. Instead, I wanted to reflect on the fact that "even a community built around the goal of overcoming bias--and composed of members abnormally smart and truth-oriented--can be quite blatantly biased towards certain classes of beings," as I put it in a rejoinder to the original comment. I fully endorse what Kazuo Thow said in a (sympathetic) comment to David Pearce's Facebook wall:
Of course, none of this was present in my original comment, so although I still believe a charitable reading of it should not have elicited such a hostile reaction, I am aware that I made things easier for those antecedently disinclined to reconsider their attitudes to non-human beings, by giving them an opportunity to dismiss my comments as coming from a self-righteous prig.
Well, unfortunately bad karma can sort of snowball on Less Wrong; when I see a comment in the negative numbers, I instinctively read it (and downthread comments) in a "possibly trolling" light. I'm not sure what might be a good fix for this.
Anyway, I think that people would have given it the benefit of the doubt had it not appeared in a meetup thread. It's a general rule of etiquette that you don't start an intellectual argument where people are trying to set up a social gathering- it throws a monkey wrench in the works. Thus, when someone violates the norm, the first assumption is that they're intending to throw a monkey wrench.
(Yes, the beauty of threaded conversations is that something like this won't necessarily derail the social gathering. But the norm exists, and while it does it's smart to be aware of it.)
OK, this is enough meta discussion for me. I hope you make a top-level post so we can actually discuss the issues...
For the record, here's what I originally commented on David's wall. My comment here on LW was an excerpt from that comment:
Again, we should find somewhere else to discuss this- but (if that's indeed Eliezer's quote) it couldn't be unthinking bias; the idea of moral concern universalized to all sentients was a big theme with Young Eliezer, if I recall correctly. Some further argument changed his mind, at least in the context of some pertinent query.
And I'm not among them, but there are a fair number of Less Wrongers who are vegetarians for ethical reasons.