This basically means that Buddhism is a very horrific moral framework for you.
I am not aware of any properties of Buddhism that would result in that conclusion.
The same goes for modern communication theories like nonviolent communication. In nonviolent communication expecting another people to fulfill an obligation is a violent act.
That doesn't make any sense. Besides the fact that it is not, in fact, a violent act, and it simply abusing nomenclature to say it is, the clear implicature of referring to something as a "violent act" is to say that one believes that others have an obligation to not do it, and expects them to fulfill that obligation.
The are many areas where people have spent a lot of time to get rid of "must" and "should" and not base their social interactions on those concepts.
And the implicature of that statement is that LW is such an area. LW, where EA is a frequent topic of discussion, and where EY and Harry!MOR constantly refer to following rationalist precepts in moral language. The way you're talking, I'd think I were posting on an Objectivist discussion board, not a Rationalist one.
The Social Justice movement where I would expect you to come from is also full of "musts" and "shoulds".
That is an odd inference. I think people shouldn't be rude and arrogant, therefore you expect that I come from the SJM?
Most of the people on LW don't have that kind of morality.
Then they don't have any morality. Morality, by definition, is concerned with what one should do.
New Agey people who are very kind and loving usually don't act based on "musts" and "shoulds".
Sure they do. They might come up with other labels for the concepts, but they're still acting based on the idea of obligation.
I imagine that the idea that there are people who are nice purely because they enjoy it to be nice can come as a huge culture shock to someone out of the Social Justice background.
I think that you are trying to equivocate between two ideas: "I am nice, and am nice not merely out of a sense of obligation, but because I like being nice" vs. "I am nice, but only because I feel like being nice. If I were to ever to feel like being an asshole, I would be an asshole, without any moral qualms"
It is the latter that you are literally saying, and I am expressing horror at.
If you believe that someone is lying, openly saying that he's lying can sometimes have utility.
That doesn't really answer my question. It simply asserts that an answer may exist.
That is an odd inference. I think people shouldn't be rude and arrogant, therefore you expect that I come from the SJM?
The interesting thing is that you don't perceive your own behavior in this case to be rude. That means you have a quite different idea of "rude" then a lot of people I know. The way you argued with Gwern is more complex than just "Gwern shouldn't be rude and arrogant" it a bunch of cultural habits that come together. That pattern of social expectations pattern matches in my mind to the social justice community.
The fa...
Apparently, I am not entitled to be treated with basic civility. Or, at least, not according to gwern. It started when gwern wrote
>>All you're saying is that Saddam called the USA's bluff and was wrong and it was disastrous. That could EASILY have happened with an attempt by the US to demand inspections from Russia.
>Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies' long-term goals.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kfd/a_parable_of_elites_and_takeoffs/b1xz
I read this as saying the USSR should call the bluff, which made no sense in relation to gwern's other posts. When I asked whether this was actually what was intended, gwern got pissed off, insisted that there was no way a good faith reading could see the post as saying that, and accused me of deliberately misunderstanding. I have bent over backwards to resolve this civilly, but my repeated attempts to get gwern to explain how I had misunderstood the sentence achieved nothing but the accusation that I was making an “underhanded” effort to get gwern to respond. Despite not being willing to discuss the matter in *that* thread, gwern brought the matter up in a comment thread for a completely different article. Throughout our encounters, gwern has been incredibly rude, referring to me as an “idiot” and “troll” (rather hypocritical, given the ridiculously silly claims made by gwern, such as that "A, therefore, A" is not a circular argument), and generally treating me with an utter lack of respect. And in defense, gwern has pointed to high karma and being here a long time as making any accusation of inappropriate behavior “presumptuous”. Because apparently, the popular kids can't be criticized by mere common folk.
Looking at the stats, gwern is indeed the top recent contributor, which makes this behavior all the more worthy of comment. If some random poster were being rude, that would be worrisome, but the fact that the top contributor thinks that a high karma score is license to egregiously violate Wheton's rule suggests that there may be something wrong with the site as a whole.
EY has referred to a need to have this be a “Well-Kept Garden”. So I would like to know whether gwern's behavior is the sort of thing that people here think is acceptable in this garden.