gjm comments on Open Thread, July 1-15, 2013 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Vaniver 01 July 2013 05:10PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (342)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (342)

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

Comment author: gjm 09 July 2013 12:04:06PM 2 points [-]

This is a different issue to [...] 'karma assassination'

It should be mentioned explicitly here -- as it has been in the discussion in the other thread, and as I know you have seen since you replied to it -- that JoshuaZ reports precisely the sort of "karma assassination" behaviour you describe, in connection with the same topic. It's because of that context that I think it likely that the highly negative score of his comment is at least partly the result of punitive downvoting aimed at him rather than at his comment specifically.

I shall amend my comment upthread to mention this context, which I agree is relevant.

Yes, it may be reasonable to decide that a particular topic is toxic and try to discourage all posting on that topic. (Though I think occasional comments arguing for dropping the subject would be a far better way of doing that than flinging downvotes around.) But that is plainly not what was happening, because only comments on one side of the issue were sitting at gratuitously low values relative to, for want of a better term, their topic-agnostic merit. (Your own description of your own actions is some evidence for this: you had downvoted that comment but not its parent.)

I am not sure why you think the word "campaign" is appropriate, though I can see why you might find it rhetorically convenient. I see what looks to me like a systematic attempt to stop LW participants expressing certain sorts of opinion, through intimidation rather than argument, I think that's bad, and I have said so a couple of times and expressed willingness to help technically if others agree with me. That's a "campaign"?

Comment author: wedrifid 09 July 2013 12:58:24PM *  -2 points [-]

It should be mentioned explicitly here -- as it has been in the discussion in the other thread, and as I know you have seen since you replied to it -- that JoshuaZ reports precisely the sort of "karma assassination" behaviour you describe, in connection with the same topic.

I agree and even considered mentioning JoshuaZ's reports as further evidence that not only is there a distinction between the two but that in this case there are probably far more representative targets you could point to which would allow you to champion your (inferred, primary) cause without hindrance due to the actual expressed petition.

But that is plainly not what was happening, because only comments on one side of the issue were sitting at gratuitously low values relative to, for want of a better term, their topic-agnostic merit.

'Topic agnostic merit' would be misleading. If the topic were to go through a translation device that removed information about the topic but preserved reasoning style and social-political implications the comments would still be easily distinguishable. For some the problem with the topic is that it inevitably produces a certain type of thinking. It not merely the topic that one must be agnostic to. It is better to refer simply to your subjective evaluation of merit, which is at least unarguable.

I am not sure why you think the word "campaign" is appropriate

It seems the best word for it. By all means provide a better word or phrase that expresses the same thing with sufficiently few words. The word is connotatively neutral to me. You have my support in your <not campaign something else> conditional on it being a <something else> against karma-assassination and not a <something else> against downvoting the kind of comment that you mentioned. I am declaring my own <something else> against the latter <something else> but pointing at the karma-assassination target as a way for you to achieve your goal without opposition or controversy..

, though I can see why you might find it rhetorically convenient.

No, I'm good and virtuous and you are sinister and I see through you because I am insightful and sophisticated! (ie. I reject those connotations, but lets move on. We're both being as forthright and straightforward as we can be here, not deviously rhetorical.)

Comment author: gjm 09 July 2013 01:15:04PM 3 points [-]

The particular comment I linked to was primarily addressing the question: What fraction of HPMOR readers are female? It justified a guess (explicitly stated to be only a guess) that the fraction is on the order of 1/2 by observing (1) that among HPMOR readers of the writer's own acquaintance the fraction is close to that, even though the writer knows substantially more men than women, and (2) that the readership of fanfiction generally skews female.

Even without any translation of that comment -- with nothing other than removing it from the context of an argument with the word "feminism" in it -- what about it would be "easily distinguishable" or exhibit a problematic "certain type of thinking"? What about its social-political implications would be unusual?

I suggest that the answer is: Nothing at all. (Which is one reason why I chose that comment as providing evidence that at least some of JoshuaZ's recent downvoters have been playing the man rather than the ball.)

Comment author: gjm 09 July 2013 03:08:12PM *  0 points [-]

(I think the bits about the term "campaign" weren't there when I replied before, hence the separate reply.)

OK, all noted. How about the following? (Which I hope will both clarify my position and get past debates about potentially tendentious terminology.)

  • I have a <proposal> that LW should have, and actively enforce, strong community norms against would-be intimidatory mass-downvoting that isn't (even in principle) justified by the demerits of the comments being downvoted.
  • You (if I've understood you right) <agree with> this proposal.
  • I am not <proposing> that LW should have or enforce norms against downvoting-gjm-dislikes, or anything of that kind,
  • and of course I would not expect you to <agree with> any such <proposal>.
  • I am also not <proposing> that LW should have or enforce norms against downvoting comments on the basis of their subject matter (as opposed to their merits given the subject matter)
    • and -- though I failed, at least initially, to make this clear -- I don't think it credible that that alone explains what I've been characterizing as would-be intimidatory downvoting of JoshuaZ's comments.
  • And, again, I would not expect you to <agree with> any such <proposal> and I understand your reasons for wanting to <dissociate yourself from> what you took to be such a <proposal> on my part.
  • Though, as it happens, I dislike many instances of this sort of topic-based downvoting and think it would be a bad thing if there were a concerted effort to prevent LW discussions of sexism, feminism, etc., in connection with HPMOR. I understand that you disagree, and repeat that what I am <proposing> is not for this sort of topic-based downvoting to be prevented, forbidden, or punished.

[EDITED once shortly after posting, for clarity only.]

Comment author: wedrifid 09 July 2013 03:50:22PM *  0 points [-]

I have a <proposal> that LW should have, and actively enforce, strong community norms against would-be intimidatory mass-downvoting that isn't (even in principle) justified by the demerits of the comments being downvoted.

'Intimidation' is a world like 'manipulation' in as much as it refers to influence provoking behaviours which is somewhat fuzzy and depends rather a lot on desired connotations. 'Intimidation' inherent in the purpose of the karma system. Users are granted the (trivial) power to use against comments so that users are intimidated out of posting things that aren't wanted.

There are instances of intimidation that are undesirable and others that work as intended. We both acknowledge that some downvotes that cause intimidation need preventing. We disagree on some cases. I'd also perhaps focus on the 'punitive' and 'systematic' aspects more so than 'intimidatory'.

and -- though I failed, at least initially, to make this clear -- I don't think it credible that that alone explains what I've been characterizing as would-be intimidatory downvoting of JoshuaZ's comments.

Conditional on JoshuaZ having recently experienced karma-assassination it seems unlikely that this comment would be an exception. Yet there are other obvious influences and confounding factors (topic-based downvoting for instance) that are also at play (as my testimony indicates). That is enough for me to force a clarification. I am happy with the specification you provided in the parent. Best of luck with your efforts!

Though, as it happens, I dislike many instances of this sort of topic-based downvoting and think it would be a bad thing if there were a concerted effort to prevent LW discussions of sexism, feminism, etc., in connection with HPMOR.

I thought similarly once. Observations of many such conversations changed my mind. Fortunately Reddit exists. There are plenty of other places to take the mind killing where it would be far more relevant and suitable.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit