= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on [SEQ RERUN] Stop Voting For Nincompoops - 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 (54)
Then the summary isn't very representative.
Eh, scare quotes by themselves are a lot less informative than you might think./
They are sufficient to remove the meaning machrider used as a straw man from the summary entirely. I think you are being silly.
The scare quotes were not "by themselves" - they were directly followed by a definition.
True, but wedrifid was not invoking that following definition as evidence; he was invoking the presence of scare quotes, and as an independent data point; and he in fact agreed that the summary paragraph was insufficient to learn the point of the post -- hence why I criticized the summary (conditional on wedrifid's claim) for failing to do its job (of either summarizing or making clear what you have to read the article to know).
Edit: Wow that's a big tangle. Here's a recap:
machrider: *reads summary*; *makes (possibly) bad point in response*
wedrifid: "What a stupid point, you obviously just read the summary and not the whole post."
me: "Then it's a bad summary."
wedrifid: "Even so, it had scare quotes."
me: "Whoa, let's not overestimate what they can do."