gjm comments on Call For Agreement: Should LessWrong have better protection against cultural collapse? - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Epiphany 03 September 2012 05:35AM

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

Comments (90)

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

Comment author: gjm 03 September 2012 11:39:40PM 3 points [-]

I see my name being taken kinda-in-vain here. I wasn't saying "LW is about to be consumed by an Eternal September" but something nearer to "If we take the course Epiphany is proposing, we may inflict an Eternal September upon ourselves". I think the same may be true for some of the other people you mention, but I haven't gone back to check exactly what they said.

Comment author: Epiphany 04 September 2012 01:14:37AM *  0 points [-]

Did my edit solve this, Gjm?

Comment author: gjm 04 September 2012 11:15:40PM 0 points [-]

Yes, with two minor caveats -- probably too minor to merit half the number of words I'm about to spend on one of them :-).

1 As I already mentioned, the same concerns may apply to some of the other people you listed; I haven't checked.

2 I'm still there bulking up your list of people worried about "this eternal September business", even though what I was expressing concern about was something more specific. Your edit means that you aren't misrepresenting me any more, but it's still a little odd. Imagine, to take an melodramatically exaggerated example, that a creationist website puts up a list of "people who think Darwin was wrong", and one of the people on the list is, say, Richard Dawkins. Even with a note explaining "Specifically, thinks that science has moved on since the 1850s and we now know lots of details Darwin didn't" his name would be out of place on that list.

The reason why #2 is not a big deal is that, actually, I do think there is a real possibility that (even without deliberate attempts to grow) LW -- or any other community -- will suffer from "dilution" over time. But that isn't what I said in the discussion you linked to :-). (And I certainly wouldn't say that it's likely to destroy LW, or anything like that.)

Comment author: Epiphany 05 September 2012 12:45:25AM 0 points [-]

Okay, well it's up to you, Gjm. I will remove you completely if you request.

Comment author: gjm 05 September 2012 08:27:23AM 1 point [-]

Given the presence of this discussion, I don't think that's necessary.