This is class bias though. Some people are not in a position to create and live in a walled garden, either in real life or on the internet, especially in places without an internet connection. Sure its great for the kind of people who use less wrong, educated, white middle class, mainly male (as I know there are several women who post regularly), obviously internet access, lots of free time to write intense blog posts.
I suppose you may cancelled this out with whenever feasible, but I also suspect the average less wrong poster would not be a good judge of feasible.
I've put a lot of thought into the politics of anger and I see value and problems on both sides. Arthur Chu appears to have expressed a much more intense version than I've seen in say, Feministe or Atheism+. Although one Feministe commentator expressed her belief that she would be morally correct to murder or burn down the house of people doing things which don't justify such a response in my personal opinion.
I've never come across the idea of deception in precisely the way that Scott framed Arthur Chu's comments. Is there a link to the actual comment made by Chu?
Is there a link to the actual comment made by Chu?
Yes.
This is class bias though. Some people are not in a position to create and live in a walled garden, either in real life or on the internet, especially in places without an internet connection.
Sucks to be them. You seem to be arguing something I've seen elsewhere, and which for the sake of definiteness I'll state in the strongest form.
No-one ever achieves anything through their own efforts. All "success" is due to privilege, which is oppression. So-called self-help is privilege used as a...
Scott, known on LessWrong as Yvain, recently wrote a post complaining about an inaccurate rape statistic.
Arthur Chu, who is notable for winning money on Jeopardy recently, argued against Scott's stance that we should be honest in arguments in a comment thread on Jeff Kaufman's Facebook profile, which can be read here.
Scott just responded here, with a number of points relevant to the topic of rationalist communities.
I am interested in what LW thinks of this.
Obviously, at some point being polite in our arguments is silly. I'd be interested in people's opinions of how dire the real world consequences have to be before it's worthwhile debating dishonestly.