= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on RationalWiki's take on LW - 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 (43)
I suspect the effect you're seeing is relative to a US-based libertarian viewpoint, and comes from many of the contributors not being in that category. So it might well look that way relative to LessWrong community norms. Describing it as a "heavily ideological website" when it's nothing of the sort is not how I would steel-man your argument, and may not serve your advocacy of said argument optimally.
What are the best example articles of what you're talking about, and what's wrong with their positions? (If possible, pick something bronze or better, silver if possible - there's certainly a lot of complete shit there, but anything silver or higher means effort's been put in and saves me just answering with a probably annoying "yeah, that article's shit".)
And by the way, what are "the intellectual institutions whose output inspires the RW writers"? I can tell you if they in fact inspired me, for example.
FWIW I largely agree with Vladimir_M that RW has a strong tendency to assume a broadly left-centrist political position. This happens also to be more or less my political position, so I'm fairly sure this isn't the result of political fanaticism on my part.
I'm not sure I'd describe it as "heavily ideological", for the rather boring reason that to me that suggests not only a definite political position but a fairly extreme political position, and being "broadly left-centrist" isn't that.
But, e.g., take a look at the page on David Cameron and tell me that it doesn't have a hefty dose of political spin on it. Again, I'm not saying this because my ox has been gored here; I agree with a lot of what the page says about him and would certainly never vote for him.
(No, that article isn't bronze-or-better. Only what, 10%?, of RW articles are bronze-or-better. The propositions "RW has a definite political slant" and "RW's bronze-or-better articles mostly do a good job of political neutrality" seem perfectly consistent to me.)