Mark_Friedenbach comments on Self-serving meta: Whoever keeps block-downvoting me, is there some way to negotiate peace? - Less Wrong

16 Post author: ialdabaoth 16 November 2013 04:35AM

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

Comments (281)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 17 November 2013 06:01:43PM 1 point [-]

You took action, after careful thought failed to provide an obviously safe pathway. That already puts you above most people, regardless of the validity of the action (I happen to agree with it, but it was obviously going to be contentious). So congrats and an upvote for that.

Regarding ethics, I wouldn't even recommend the sequences. Perhaps one of the many philosophical resources out there on the web. Ethics is applied morality, and morality comes from within. The way to cultivate ethics is to apply your inner morality over and over again to various hypothetical situations, which is what most moral philosophical argumentation is about.

Comment author: satt 17 November 2013 08:40:21PM 9 points [-]

The hand-wringing in most of the parent comments about the ethics of ialdabaoth naming names is kind of amusing, given that ialdabaoth basically called Eugine_Nier out months ago with far less circumspection.

Comment author: hyporational 17 November 2013 10:25:31PM 2 points [-]

Well, he didn't start a top level discussion post about it back then, so there's that. He also got downvoted because of those accusations back then, as I think he should be now.

Comment author: ialdabaoth 19 November 2013 05:43:39PM 1 point [-]

Yep, that was not one of my finer moments.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 November 2013 09:22:13PM 1 point [-]

I find it more interesting there that that Eugine didn't deny the statement at all.

Comment author: Kawoomba 17 November 2013 09:37:57PM 6 points [-]

If you participate in a mud-slinging contest, even as the winner you're still likely to end up full of mud.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 November 2013 09:39:49PM *  2 points [-]

Sure. Maybe I'm engaging in a typical mind fallacy, but if a comment like that came to me completely out of the blue I think my response would have at least been a "Bwwah? What?" sort of thing, not silence.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 November 2013 07:33:10PM 1 point [-]

I love wedrifid's response to ialdabaoth, and am considering implementing it myself.

Comment author: ialdabaoth 19 November 2013 06:05:12PM *  3 points [-]

I love wedrifid's response to ialdabaoth, and am considering implementing it myself.

It's not a bad response. While I assert that wedrifid's (and hyporational's) assumptions about why I'm doing this are incorrect, you all have no reason to trust that assertion. From your perspective, this could easily be a simple grudge or whining or social ploy, and it makes good sense to respond to it the way you are.

That said, I'll continue to take whatever karma hit you impose, because my own karma is less important than bringing attention to this sort of thing. I bring attention to my own case instead of other people's because I'm closest to my own, but I have frequently thought "I can't be the only one experiencing this", and that has motivated me to complain rather than simply going away.

Part of the problem is that I have three different classes of situations in which I will post about karma.

Class 1 is when I notice that I am confused. My post will typically convey something like "why was this voted down?". I fear that wedrifid has mistaken those posts for an attempt at shaming, but my actual intent was to say, "I thought karma was supposed to be used like {this}, but I see it being used like {that}. Please help me correct my understanding of karma's purpose?"

Case 2 is when I have a reasonably strong suspicion that karma is being abused. My post will typically convey something like "is this really how we want to behave as a community?". I can understand why another person's view might blend these together with case 1, but they actually are completely different. When wedrifid posted his admonition/threat, I took that opportunity to re-evaluate how I was communicating in Case 1 and Case 2. Hopefully I'm doing a little better.

Case 3 is when I am tired, and lonely, and perhaps a little irrational, and feel somewhat persecuted. My post will typically convey something like "why are you doing this to meeeeee?". I can see why another person's view might blend these together with case 1 and case 2, but unfortunately when I'm in that kind of mood, my rational facilities are not operating at peak performance. Whenever I do this, I actually APPRECIATE people like you and wedrifid downvoting that post to oblivion, because it provides useful social feedback not do to that shit. As an imperfectly rational being, I must rely on the social feedback of other imperfectly rational beings to improve my rationality.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 November 2013 03:40:09AM -2 points [-]

This comment is really too long of a response to my comment, and I have no intention of reading it.