= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Voiceofra is banned - 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 (222)
Nancy, I support Scott's (Yvain's) approach. Just say you are a dictator and ban at a whim (or perhaps ban "virtue-ethically" rather than "deontologically" -- "we don't want your type around here.") Publishing rules just invites people to bend them.
That makes sense for visible behavior, like trolling, but this ban is about the invisible behavior of mass downvoting. I don't think anyone is worried about Nancy's judgment of such actions, but she is worried about the difficulty of discovering it. Algorithms might be useful for enforcing rules on voting or discovering patterns therein.
Exactly.
I don't think it's going to be very difficult to discover Eugene's new account once he makes it. The real difficulty is making it not worth his while to keep coming back.
I don't count myself as either a rationalist or a community member here, so this is an opinion of a somewhat sympathetic outsider (take it for what it is). But I think you guys should find a way to throw the nrx out, and let them start their own community. I think they are going to do more harm than good in the long run. Yvain started to clean house already on his blog, because he noticed the same.
Why? Because you'd rather have an echo-chamber than a rationalist community? Because you secretly suspect the NRx's are correct and are worried their arguments will persuade more people to agree with them?
The universal counterargument of crackpots.
Because nrx attracts the type of people like you or "Jim."
You mean people willing to say things likely to be true even if it isn't socially acceptable to admit they are. Yes, I can see why people who are uncomfortable with reality would have a problem with that.
People holding similar positions to yours but expressing them in much less dickish ways have included, off the top of my head, Konkvistador (whose total karma is 88% positive), nydwracu (91% positive), Vladimir M (93% positive). Nyan Sandwich and Moss Piglet appear to have deleted their accounts, but I don't recall them being downvoted much either -- nor can I recall many people lamenting the presence of any of said commenters.
For comparison, advancedatheist is 59% positive and sam0345 (most likely James Donald) is 53% positive; also eridu, who expressed radical feminist opinions in a way almost as obnoxious as Jim expresses his, has since deleted his account, but IIRC his % positive was also in the mid 50s.
So no, the social acceptability of a statement does not just depend on its factual content.
This may sound like an intricate Song of Ice and Fire fan theory, but has anybody checked whether eugine_nier and Jim Donald are the same person? For example, can we compare the IP of sam0345 and Eugine's accounts? Alternatively, Yvain probably has access to the IP address for both posters.
(I am not the same username2 as above. This is my first post using the anonymous username2 account)
It seems very unlikely (< 10%) to me, given they have regularly commented on the same Armed and Dangerous threads for years, with no obvious reason for one person to use two aliases at the same time (also, Eugine has commented on Jim's blog e.g.).
Very unlikely, I think. Eugine is, or claims to be, from somewhere ex-Soviet, and writes like a non-native. Jim seems straightforwardly American. I don't see any obvious reason for either of those to be fake.
Consider the possibility that Ilya doesn't mean what you say he means.
I don't know what Ilya means, that's way I'm asking and giving by best guess.
This:
isn't what asking looks like.
Or because you and Jim are being tedious assholes nobody likes to hang out with, while going on about the same predictable set of not socially acceptable stuff for years and years without having anything new and interesting to say after a while.
Given the most obvious way to taboo "tedious assholes" I don't see how this is different than what I wrote.
That's because no one has yet offered a good argument for why we are wrong. They've just done the equivalent of sticking fingers in their ears and going "na-na-na I can't hear you". Sort of like what Ilya and yourself are doing right now.
Yes, we do, maybe you'd notice if you didn't shut down your brain whenever you encountered a non-PC idea.
I don't think there's been much elaboration on the ideas that were already floating around here five-ish years ago in the last few years. We've just had the few regulars jumping in with the same message, failing to start much interesting conversation, and growing increasingly cranky.
Making being a reactionary your life's work isn't very rewarding. It's a feature of the present system that proponents who get boring and repetitive get thrown in the wood chipper and more clever and interesting ones take their place, but any single person will get stuck in their old material after a while.
This entire discussion is about you, not about your ideas.
First, stop putting words in people's mouths. Second, as rationalists, we'd convert to NRx in an instant if we had any sufficiently strong reason to believe NRx is correct.
This isn't obvious to me, or at least would benefit from a separation between NRx critiques and NRx proposals / attitudes. One can think that the NRx view of liberal democracy is much more correct than the liberal democracy view of liberal democracy without thinking that the NRx prescriptions are correct.
If we have a "no politics" rule it should apply to nrx. Nrx people can participate if they are able to do so apolitically.
...nor do anything else as dickish as downvoting the hell out of somebody's every single comment because they disagree with one of them or use the anonymous account to vote.
<gd&r>
We don't have a no politics rule, though we may have a no politics custom.
It's difficult to talk rationally about politics, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Seconded.
FWIW, I think of anyone who posts here regularly as a Wronger! (I know, I know, you disagree with other people here about how to do causal inference and about the insightfulness/worthiness of academics — but disagreeing with the rest of the gang on some specific topic is pretty common, I reckon, and not nearly enough to get you kicked out of the treehouse.)
This I disagree with. The only neoreactionaries I remember being obnoxious enough here to raise a real stink are Eugine_Nier and Jim, and Jim hasn't posted here since 2012. That's too thin a basis for kicking out a particular political group, especially since Eugine_Nier being here has had some benefit. (I have occasionally seen them shake people out of misconceptions.) It's just that Eugine_Nier's abuse of the voting system outweighed/outweighs that benefit. (That wasn't Eugine_Nier's only downside, but it was the big one.)
I don't think I have substantive disagreements with folks here who know about the topic. I try to do outreach with others, not the same as disagreement :).