Most of the world does not speak in the same way that LessWrong does, but they still have valuable things to say. Recognizing that and adapting to it would be beneficial.

Your intended influence is not in the direction of making it more easy for the rest of the world to communicate effectively on lesswrong---in fact it is the reverse. DaFranker is already far more willing than most to attempt to communicate with you despite your manner and without reciprocating your debate tactics. The presumption you made is that DaFranker should be expected to push himself to implausible extremes of tolerance, patience and rational thinking so that he is somehow able to resurrect the possibility of communicating with you. This kind of expectation is the opposite of what it takes to adapt to communicating with normal people.

Most of the world cares about belligerent tone. Your argument undermines your position.

In what way am I deliberately manipulating people using their emotional intuitions? Can you give an example? I'm trying to frame myself in contrast to the norm, I agree with that. I don't think that should be perceived as a bad thing. I think that you perceive that as a bad thing is itself a bad thing.

This itself is a good example of it. I wasn't even touching the concern of whether it should be perceived as bad, or whether my reaction was good. While I used the emotional impacts of the discourse as a datapoint towards a certain other argument, what I said was descriptive, and it wasn't my intention to have any prescriptive statements (other than the actual point of the grandparent, which the quote above has nothing to do with).

I also wasn't saying that I belief you do deliberately attempt to manipulate people with emotional intuitions. I'm saying that, as in the above example I just quoted, some of your statements and phrasings makes my model of you be formed towards "the type of person that deliberately manipulates people with emotional intuitions". Whether the model is accurate or not is a separate matter from that point. I'm inclined to believe that this default model is accurate, and had updated in favor of the opposite (i.e. you don't try to manipulate people using emotions), which in turn prompted me to respond to your comments.

Side note: why am I the one you chose to rebuke, and not Wedrifid? His comment is clearly more illustrative of the things that you are criticizing. My guess: status, and that's all. He's a tough target, but I'm not. I'm going to mentally flag this as a data point pointing towards my belief that LessWrong has an unhealthy level of preoccupation with status that is somehow unquestioningly accepted as normal and healthy. Just a more general point that I felt like making.

Completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make in the grandparent; You were arguing that tone wasn't (and/or shouldn't) be important, I was offering a piece of evidence to the contrary.

If tone makes it difficult for members of one of the most elite communities of rationalists in the world to engage in dialogue, I doubt the issue can be waved away as "you should just get better at ignoring it".

Your overall argument is that because it is difficult for you to engage my arguments rationally, I ought to change.

It is not.

Most of the world does not speak in the same way that LessWrong does, but they still have valuable things to say. Recognizing that and adapting to it would be beneficial.

I doubt anyone disagrees on this. See above; this wasn't what I was arguing.

I think the problem here is much more you than me. There is a big problem when you strawman someone three times based only on tone.

Yes, there generally is a big problem when you strawman someone three times (regardless of cause). I doubt it was based only on tone, but now it's been long enough that I don't remember the specifics, and this particular comment I'm responding to doesn't seem to evoke the same subconscious responses.

I especially think this is true since I see nothing in my comment similar to the kind of manipulations that you describe.

There is an injunction against using this as evidence for anything, IIRC. Human brains are "designed" such that they would have this exact reaction either way, before it even enters your stream of consciousness. It is reasonable to be doubtful of such accusations when they happen, though. I don't remember making such an accusation explicitly, but I did imply it despite myself in the grandparent (in my description of how I perceived you subconsciously).

My apologies, I had no intent to point at you with specific accusations of manipulative behavior. I don't see any examples of these kinds of manipulations either. Only statements and phrasings that evoke the feelings that such manipulations evoke, and elicit (at least in me) similar reactions overall.

You literally said that "tone... [is] a good indication of whether they... need to be treated as a hostile rhetorician that is not vulnerable to persuasion (or learning)."

You think that tone alone is enough to tell us whether or not someone can learn. You think that people with certain tones can reliably be considered stupid.

I think neither of those things. This isn't about stupidity or intelligence. This is about how people will behave within a conversation. More intelligence granted to a debator set on winning an argument and securing status does not make them better at accepting and learning from information in the context. It makes them better at defending themselves from needing to. It makes them better and creating straw men and clever but irrelevant counter-arguments.

I wish lack of intelligence was the only thing that could prevent someone from comprehending something. Alas...

You never stated that you think that people who speak like us are the smart ones.

I'm not comfortable identifying with any group 'us' unless I know how that group is identified. I'd be surprised if I even willingly put myself in the same group as you (making a quoted-from-you 'us' unlikely). For better or worse I do not believe I relate to words, argument or communication in general the same way that you do. (And yes, I do believe that my 'us' would refer to the 'smart ones'---or at least ones that are laudable in some way that I consider significant.)