= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Capla comments on Breaking the vicious cycle - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (125)
I read this (from here), smiled and thought, "there's some karma for you. In no way metaphysical."
Then, I thought, "we have a literal karma system on this site." I checked. He has karma in the quadrupedal digits, 75 percent positive. I don't understand. If XiXiDu was so abusive, why is does he so upvoted? It seems like he must of said things worth saying, perhaps useful critiques. Is the karma system broken (or at least not designed to deal with this sort of thing) or are the accusations not as bad as they seem? Someone explain my confusion.
XiXiDu is generally a smart person and most of his comments are very good. He has this one pet peeve though.
LW karma is not a vote on the person, it's a collection of the votes on their individual comments. Most of his comments are good. Some of them are... controversial, to put it mildly.
75 percent positive means 25 percent negative. To get a worse outcome, a person would have to be unable to post good comments, or unable to stop bringing the controversial topic everywhere, or unwilling to participate in debates unrelated to the controversial topic. In some situations XiXiDu seems unable to resist, but he usually contributes productively in completely unrelated articles.
Now that's a shitty thing to say, regardless of where one stands on the issue. Wouldn't you say* that life is too short to be happy about other people's lives getting shorter? "Haha, my ideological opponent will lose our argument, by ways of dying first!" (Not to slippery slope you.) Also, let's not do the whole "abusive" reference class. That term has been so dragged through the mud via cultural appropriation by the malcontent that its use is triggering me.
* That being said, upvoted for how actual human beings think and feel, as opposed to what we're publicly supposed to portray.
If someone get's forced by his system 1 to quit making an argument that's not only about his life getting shorter. In general when someone identifies the reasons for a health issue and makes a step to solve the issue, that's no reason to be sad.
75% positive is not a high ratio of positive karma. It's also not like every single comment he wrote on LW is flawed. Most of the problematic posts are also written outside of LW.
On a forum called "LessWrong", where you can infer that people prefer not to hold incorrect beliefs, you can understand how critics who point out when you are being wrong so that you can be less wrong would be upvoted.
Plus, I don't think he has been uniformly abusive - times when he has gone 'over the line' do not represent a significant proportion of his postings on the site. Or so I perceive.
Abusive?
Responding to Capla's quote:
Explained by how most of his abuse is not occurring in comments here. Here he often plays at politeness. Then goes to his own blog or other forums, and there we are all a mass of creepy dangerous brainwashed naive cultists.