Vladimir_Nesov comments on Eliezer's Sequences and Mainstream Academia - Less Wrong

99 Post author: lukeprog 15 September 2012 12:32AM

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

Comments (153)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 21 September 2012 11:34:48AM 4 points [-]

And remember, billionaire friend Peter Thiel financed this immense production, which E.Y. wrote while on Thiel's payroll at SIAI. It's immensity isn't a product of original thought but, in the end, of a pampered parasite with too much time on his hands.

Seriously? DevilWorm is criticizing Eliezer for managing to find financial support while producing his intellectual output? That's how most intellectual work gets done---both within and without formal academic establishments and in various forms across time. This criticism is utterly pathetic.

I don't understand how DevilWorm has been upvoted here (+3 prior to my vote). The remainder of the comment is almost as bad---as is every other comment he has written. Moreover a brief glance at the user's comment history identifies the DevilWorm account as rather obviously yet another sock-puppet created for the purpose of acting out his personal animosity.

How the heck are our new anti-trolling measures going to work if people go around upvoting blatant trolling like this? I mean sure, this guy seems to have a basic grasp of grammar and punctuation but apart from that he doesn't seem to have contributed anything but some filler in which to embed some unnecessary insults.

DevilWorm's comments (and all other slander-sockpuppets) should not be upvoted. They should be downvoted to invisibility until someone has a chance to ban the comments---and that only because the 'ban user by name and IP' is missing.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 September 2012 11:40:47AM *  5 points [-]

I'm actually moderately alarmed by the level at which their comments are upvoted (with all the bold face and whatnot). This event potentially adds motivation to the "Don't let users with low Karma upvote things" change.

Comment author: mrglwrf 21 September 2012 04:34:55PM -1 points [-]

If a non-negligible number of people upvote comments expressing negative opinions of Eliezer Yudkowsky or the Sequences, what leads you to the conclusion that the best response is to label these comments "slander" and cast for roundabout ways to suppress them? If you want an echo-chamber (a reasonable thing to want), that can be easily and non-disingenuously accomplished, for instance by making it explicit policy that disagreement with local authority figures is not permitted.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 21 September 2012 04:53:10PM 5 points [-]

I'm afraid of the acceptance and approval of low quality comments, irrespective of the positions they express.