You're really serious aren't you? Affirmative action? That's your argument? And I thought this was a rationalist website. You probably think there isn't a systematic bias against women either.
I'm tapping out, now that you've revealed your true nature.
You're really serious aren't you? Affirmative action? That's your argument?
Yes, and I notice a distinct lack of counter-argument on your part.
And I thought this was a rationalist website.
Yes, and that means we are expected to provide arguments for our claims here.
You probably think there isn't a systematic bias against women either.
There isn't.
now that you've revealed your true nature.
From my experience, that's social-justice-speak for "I don't actually have any rational arguments against your position so I'm going to resort to name calling".
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.