roland comments on The 5-Second Level - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (310)
I know that I'll probably be downvoted again, but nevertheless.
Sorry, but I don't feel that I have this freedom on LW. And I feel people moralize here especially using the downvote function.
To give a concrete example of Eliezer himself
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/
I politely asked for clarification only to be not only ignored but also downvoted to -4:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/1t7r
On another comment I presented evidence to the contrary(a video interview) to be downvoted to -15: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/1r5v
So when just asking the most basic rationality question(why do you believe what you believe) and presenting evidence that contradicts a point is downvoted I don't feel that LW is about rationality as much as others like to believe. And I also feel that basic elements of politeness are missing and yes, I feel like I have to walk on eggs.
I upvoted your comment prospectively. That is, it'll be worth an upvote when you edit out the passive aggressive intro and I'm being optimistic. :)
We do. Not all the downvoting is moralizing but a significant subset is. And not all the moralizing is undesirable to me, even though a significant subset is.
For what it is worth, believing the WTC was loaded with explosives really is insane.
Following a suggestion from Cayenne:
wedrifid, I don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion, could you explain the reasoning behind it?