Disagree. Social justice is a set of dozens of axes and deals with issues like the prison-industrial complex. But somehow people caught up in that are being unreasonable when Mestroyer says that existential risk is more important and they take offense? That's ridiculous.
The net harm done by any number of social justice issues far outweighs the issues Mestroyer considers important based on his comment.
Are you arguing that its merely the intensity of the response that makes them mindkilled?
Are you arguing that its merely the intensity of the response that makes them mindkilled?
The intensity of the response is what makes them mindkilled. Of course, if the social justice people were actually willing to listen to people who disagreed with them, they might realize that Mestroyer is in fact correct about existential risk being more important that their issues.
Edit: In fact, if they listed to more criticism, they might realize that the net harm from most of their issues is at worst negligible and at best negative, i.e., it is the social justice movement itself that is doing net harm.
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.