= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
chaosmosis comments on Less Wrong Parents - 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 (58)
This sounded a bit cultish. Babies aren't the property of LessWrong.
Sounds better.
Keep in mind that the NYC community is a physical tight-knit community in a way that LW or even a swing dancing club isn't. (I live in SF and expect a great deal of cooperative parenting if and when the LWers there start breeding en masse.)
I think you're being oversensitive -- if I said the NYC Swing Dancing Club had two babies, I don't think anyone would bat an eye.
Eyes batting like mad over here. I've only ever heard that construction applied to actual members of the organization, e.g. "our swing dancing club has two new parents", or "our Thursday morning playgroup has two new toddlers".
It wouldn't sound cultish or anything, but it'd still sound "weird" to me.
Nobody said the babies are the property of Less Wrong. But they are presumably part of the community.
No they aren't? Babies aren't too interested or capable of increasing their rationality. or making decisions.
I believe at least one of us has a deep misapprehension of what a community is.
While I found chaosmosis' comment slightly ill formed I agree that their proposed wording is better than the original wording, which just sounded off to me.
I wouldn't describe a baby as a LWer on the basis of their parents' affiliation any more than I would describe them as a Christian, a Democrat, or a heterosexual.
Amused that Saliency of all people is getting accused of being phygish.
I know, right?? laughs