ciphergoth comments on Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism - Less Wrong

104 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 April 2009 02:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (307)

Comments (307)

Sort By: Top

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ciphergoth 22 April 2009 11:11:36AM 4 points [-]

OK, yes, that's a counterexample. However, in all those instances, the community itself is screwed in a fundamental way, and the fix is not for people to welcome the "idiots": the fix is to leave the community and go somewhere more sensible. Is there an example of a community good enough that you would recommend anyone to join, but which would have been improved by taking the criticism of unpopular members more seriously? It doesn't have to be a well-known example, and you don't have to link to it; even anecdotal evidence would be enlightening here.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 20 October 2011 06:10:08PM 0 points [-]

Damaging such a broken community might be a good thing, much as tearing down a dangerously decrepit building can be better than letting squatters stay in it until it collapses on them.

(I think that analogy as gone about as far as it should go)

Comment author: bogus comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: lessdazed 20 October 2011 10:55:43PM 0 points [-]

Invoking this metaphor...The term "virtual community" should be permanently taboo-ed here

You make a good case for this

The real broken analogy is comparing an online social club to a community, of all things.

That's wrong. It would be a poor isomorphism, it's a fantastic analogy.

compromise their values

In inferring that's necessarily the case, one probably commits the fallacy of composition.

irrationality

Speaking of words worthy of "taboo"...

grossly authoritarian...petty

Speaking of "Invoking this metaphor (and the instinct of protection which it naturally evokes)"...

Comment author: bogus 20 October 2011 11:46:41PM * 1 point [-]

In inferring that's necessarily the case, one probably commits the fallacy of composition.

Most real-world communities involve such compromises, if only in the values of autonomy and freedom. We will gladly make these compromises given the attendant benefits, but this is not to say that a change in core values has not occurred.

Speaking of "Invoking this metaphor (and the instinct of protection which it naturally evokes)"...

You are misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying we should care about how a pure social club is managing itself. I'll even endorse such clubs calling themselves "online communities", if this makes folks happier. But the moment an "online community" is having harmful effects on the real world (say, by fostering misconceptions about economics and free markets [as per sibling thread], or by spreading lies such as "global warming is caused by solar activity, not by human beings"), is when respectfully engaging with that "community" becomes justified and praise-worthy. And so is criticizing them as "authoritarian" if they were to dismiss genuine grievances about their real-world impact with petty concerns about "politeness" and "manners".

This is part of the reason why Less Wrong discourages political discussion. We do not know how to have a genuinely useful/productive political debate online, and we don't want trolls to come here and complain about how their pet political cause is being handled. So we focus on the smaller problems of epistemic and instrumental rationality, leaving politics to specialized "open politics" websites which can experiment and take the heat for what they do. In turn, open politics folks will hopefully refer to Less Wrong for basic rationality stuff.

Comment author: lessdazed 21 October 2011 02:54:13AM 1 point [-]

such compromises

All else equal, one infers values from actions.

When multiple parties make a pact to modify their actions from what they would otherwise have done, it is a mistake to think that they have necessarily modified their values. In particular, if they agree to modify their actions to be similar to each other's, to each perform the actions that best jointly satisfy their values, it is a mistake to think that any individual or all of them now has the value set that would be implied by an individual independently choosing to act as each has agreed.

"authoritarian"

Criticizing for doing a type of thing is misguided. "Slavery!"

Concerns about politeness, manners, and social norms that underlie clear communication are tied into real-world impact. You seem to be artificially constructing criticism by looking for types of things and labeling them with the term that describes them and connotes they are evil without making concrete criticisms of things actually said or done here (I didn't see "politeness" or "manners" invoked in this comment thread, for example).

Comment author: wedrifid 21 October 2011 03:05:49AM 1 point [-]

"authoritarian"

Criticizing for doing a type of thing is misguided.

Often, it depends. ;)

It is legitimate to have preferences (or ethics or morals) that do deprecate all instances of doing a type of thing.

Comment author: lessdazed 21 October 2011 03:21:21AM 2 points [-]

Worse, what I said was logically self-contradictory.

Let's try again:

For almost any type of thing, it is not true that it is always deleterious.

Criticizing a type of thing is useful to the extent you and others are poor at reasoning about and acting on specifics.

Comment author: wedrifid 21 October 2011 03:32:19AM 1 point [-]

Worse, what I said was logically self-contradictory.

Good point.

For almost any type of thing, it is not true that it is always deleterious.

Criticizing a type of thing is useful to the extent you and others are poor at reasoning about and acting on specifics.

That works!

ciphergoth comments on Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (307)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (307)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login