= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Randaly comments on Let's be friendly to our allies - 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 (46)
You aren't engaging with jgweissman's core argument- that the post definitely belongs on LW, as it's useful, related to LW's core mission, by a related group, and offering free services to us. Whether or not its an ad is not relevant. (It's irrelevant even by the most generous possible interpretation of community standards- we routinely have ads for unrelated and commercial products/services, to the extent that there was a highly upvoted official thread for them.) I see this as using Dark Arts to attack a common cause.
You're also using inaccurate ad hominems- how is this in any way a guilt trip? Why are you conflating jgweissman with 80K? (While he is a member, I feel quite confident he joined after the previous post. I know for sure that he joined after August 8th.)
Edited in response to mwengler
On the contrary, JGW posted this top-level post partly in response to my original comment (there were no others calling it an ad at the time, despite his use of the plural). Within it, he explicitly ignores my point:
The main reason I gave for saying it did not belong on LW was that it was an ad, and a poorly written one at that!
I also think those ads are abuses of the discussion section, even when they are posted by the SI itself, and I have argued against them in the past, to little avail.
What else do you call it when someone complains about downvotes, in order to receive upvotes?
This is becoming somewhat silly. I've already wasted more time arguing against the post than time I would ever possibly save from discussion being ad-free.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you thought JGW was saying. Here's how I interpreted it: The question of whether or not it's an ad is a matter of semantics; such arguments are almost never useful, and JGW quite rightly, IMHO, decided not to get involved in one.
Claiming that the post was an ad sneaks in a couple of connotations, most notably that it is poor quality, that it is not useful for LW members, that it is designed to profit the advertiser by manipulating readers in detrimental ways, etc. (Or, more broadly, that no ad belongs on LW.) JGW addressed those connotations directly, instead of getting mired in a debate about definitions: "We should be happy when they reach out to us, to see how we can work together... They are basically offering to do free research for us on things that we care about, because our goals are aligned...." (If that post was an ad, and it belonged on LW, then clearly some ads belong on LW.) Your response then pointed out that "it was an ad."
JGW had not been downvoted before; I do not see the above post as being designed to produce guilt; the majority of the target audience had not downvoted the post in question; I don't see how the goal of this post was upvotes, as opposed to a changed community norm.
Each of you claims this is sickening. Each of you is exaggerating. This is not conducive to rational discussion, is it?
I don't see where Randaly called anything "sickening" (maybe a different comment than the one you are responding to? or pre edit?). I have gone so far as to call poor reception "disappointing", which I would not say is an exaggeration.
I don't agree with the equivalency of arguments you are implying.
I edited out that part, since I think mwengler had a good point: it added nothing to my argument and was insulting. I also slightly edited the tone of the rest of the comment, but didn't change anything of substance.
You are correct. I just joined, at about the same time I wrote the post. My prior involvement with 80K was discussing career advancement with Carl Shulman, which may been in part informed by his work for them.