Nick_Tarleton comments on Wanting to Want - Less Wrong

16 Post author: Alicorn 16 May 2009 03:08AM

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

Comments (185)

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

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 20 May 2009 03:32:29AM *  1 point [-]

There's a big difference between parochialism that is, at worst, confusing, and parochialism that makes some people feel ignored or excluded (even if they aren't being ignored or excluded).

Comment deleted 20 May 2009 05:35:06AM *  [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 20 May 2009 09:49:50AM 2 points [-]

politically correct

You realize that this is an anti-applause light that conveys little informational value, right?

The actual argument is that since women comprise half the population and are severely underrepresented on LW as it is, if phrasing that implies the audience is uniformly male makes women feel excluded it is detrimental to the goal of spreading rationality. Do you actually have an argument against this?

Please note that "women won't actually feel excluded" is demonstrably false.

Comment deleted 20 May 2009 12:24:45PM *  [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 20 May 2009 07:40:16PM 2 points [-]

No. It adequately serves as a descriptive reference to the social dynamics involved in determining what is Right, moral, acceptable enlightened or otherwise good. If you can suggest a substitute phrase then I would happily adopt it. Arguments along the lines of 'something to do with political correct therefore something bad about the other side' are common. It is to be expected that some will assume a similar error of reasoning is being applied whenever the phrase is being used no matter the actual content and I would prefer to have a phrase that avoided this hassle.

The phrase you're looking for is probably "socially acceptable" or "social norm". The phrase "politically correct" is primarily used as a connotationally-loaded derogatory for social norms the speaker disagrees with, and to signal, in a beliefs-as-attire manner, group membership with certain political positions. If you want to criticize social norms, which I agree is a rewarding and enjoyable hobby, you would do better to name the specific norms you take issue with, rather than using a catch-all term for norms you dislike.

For instance: Which claims of exclusion are not acceptable to raise that you think ought to be? Why? What norms would you prefer?

I reject posts and certain of the normative demands contained therein on their own merit as I see it.

Okay. Which specific normative demands are you rejecting?

It is reasonable to desire an inclusive environment independently of the influence this improved environment may have on the spread of rationality. I for one accept inclusiveness a terminal value while 'spreading rationality' is not a goal of mine at all.

So you accept inclusiveness as valuable, but disagree with explanations given by individuals who felt excluded for why they felt that way, and feel that others are neglecting the spirit of mutual understanding across a cultural barrier? I'm not sure I follow.

Comment deleted 21 May 2009 12:54:42AM *  [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 21 May 2009 09:35:34AM *  1 point [-]

Do not presume so much.

Then I confess I am at a loss as to what your point in all this was, as you seem to have stated is a rejection of something that other people said without any real explanation as to what you're rejecting, or why.

Comment deleted 24 June 2009 01:36:42AM [-]
Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 24 June 2009 02:14:13AM *  6 points [-]

I don't normally remark on such things, but I'm a bit discouraged to note the following:

  • The parent comment was the first time Cameron_Taylor has posted anything in roughly a month, in a long-dead argument in which he and I were disagreeing.
  • At roughly the same time the parent comment was posted, roughly the last 80 or so posts I've made were all voted down, consecutively, once each, for no discernable reason.
  • I recall at least two other commenters mentioning being voted down suddenly on multiple unrelated comments previously while arguing with Cameron_Taylor.

Karma is easy-come, easy-go, but I'm thinking that someone is not exactly participating in good faith here.

Comment author: conchis 24 June 2009 02:34:31AM *  5 points [-]

By way of confirmation, this has indeed happened to both myself and at least one other commenter previously (I'll leave it to them whether they want to reveal themselves). I had been waiting to see whether it would happen again to be sure, but we now seem to have pretty good evidence of bad faith.

As SoullessAutomaton notes, the karma itself is not much of an issue, but it's nonetheless rather disappointing to see this sort of behavior. It's not immediately clear whether there's much to be done about it other than public shaming, but as a possible means of preventing this happening again, I don't suppose there's any way to revoke the downvoting privileges of those who seem to be abusing the system?

Comment author: thomblake 24 June 2009 03:02:15PM 1 point [-]

For the record, I've been known to downvote large numbers of posts at once (since I'm only here looking at comments for short periods of time, and downvote a lot of posts) but I read them first. Not so much lately, due to the extremely limited number of downvotes available.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 24 June 2009 03:52:29AM 0 points [-]

I've previously asked Tricycle for the ability to monitor this sort of thing. I will ask them again.

For the record, this sort of systematic downvoting is not only not in good faith, but grounds for removal of the ability to downvote.