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?
Its an inconsistency in Mestroyer's logic. He talks about how social justice types could attract "lawful good" people. But his response, typical of a certain class of rationalist is so offensive to social justice types that one wonders whether it makes sense to attract a group who places social justice so low on their to-do list. It seems to me that it would be counter productive to integrate people such as Mestroyer into the social justice community.
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.