According to the vast majority of social just types, you have just signaled yourself as a quite serious enemy. At the very least you would get banned from any site you posted this on. At worst you would probably be blackballed and quite roundly thrashed in social media.
Given your argument of how they should interact with "lawful goods", and please taboo your applause lights of "dark arts" and "dnd alignments in general", you are unironically making a much larger mistake wrt to them. That is, this post will put them off towards you, and possibly people who interact positively with you, far more than Arthur's posts would put Yvain off.
Can you explain the difference here? Why is it rational for you to make this post but not for Arthur to make his?
For reference, saying that existential risk and animal cruelty outweigh social justice is going to be extremely offensive to them. I'm not sure I could state how much mortality/aging, especially in LW terms, being more important than social justice would make them hate you without getting banned, even on a site that pride's itself on free and open discourse. Well, I suppose i could try but I would probably fail.
I wouldn't react the same way, but I also wouldn't fault them for their reaction.
According to the vast majority of social just types, you have just signaled yourself as a quite serious enemy. At the very least you would get banned from any site you posted this on. At worst you would probably be blackballed and quite roundly thrashed in social media.
Is this supposed to be an argument against Mestroyer or against the Social Justice Types?
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.