ChristianKl comments on The Fable of the Burning Branch - Less Wrong

-19 Post author: EphemeralNight 08 February 2016 03:20PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (175)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Old_Gold 13 February 2016 02:01:04AM 0 points [-]

Hidding was part of my critcism from the start.

More in a "how dare you try to hide from me" kind of sense.

As far as me being SJ In the days where I actually did run a forum where I had moderator power I took the side of the right of an African to speak of homosexuality as a crime that's legalized in some countries.

Would you have done that for someone who didn't belong to a "more protected" category?

I don't have a problem with people sincerely arguing for positions that aren't PC.

I find that incredibly hard to believe given your behavior elsewhere in the comments but especially in this thread.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 February 2016 11:06:21AM *  2 points [-]

More in a "how dare you try to hide from me" kind of sense.

No, you get that sense because you mislabel me as SJW when I'm not.

I find that incredibly hard to believe given your behavior elsewhere in the comments but especially in this thread.

I guess that says more about your model of the world than about me. Or that the topic is heavily mind-killing.

If you read through my LW history you will find my quite civilly discussing the issue of pedophila with a person who wants to legalize it.

On Omnilibrium he have been called right-wing because of how I see the perfomance of the post-apartheid government of South Africa.

My position is that everybody should be allowed to argue any position but not that everybody should be allowed to argue any position in any way they like. The more extreme a position the more important it is that the person focus on focusing on having a fact based discussion.

Comment author: Old_Gold 13 February 2016 07:49:34PM *  0 points [-]

No, you get that sense because you mislabel me as SJW when I'm not.

An SJW is someone who engages in certain types of behavior, and your "nice forum you got here, would be a shame if someone called it sexist"-style blackmail here was definitely SJW-behavior. You don't get to act like a SJW and then complain when someone calls you out on it.

If you read through my LW history you will find my quite civilly discussing the issue of pedophila with a person who wants to legalize it.

So you're willing to discuss extreme positions to your left.

The more extreme a position the more important it is that the person focus on focusing on having a fact based discussion.

The more extreme position the more trouble one can get into for attempting fact based discussion. There is in fact a long tradition of dissidents writing stories set in the past or in sci-fi worlds when it's not safe to object directly to what's going on. Granted, EphemeralNight is overestimating the current danger and the amount of hiding required.

Also, what do you consider an "extreme" position for purposes of this rule? Can you cite any instance where you applied this to any position that was to "extreme" left-wing?

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 February 2016 09:57:29PM 3 points [-]

"nice forum you got here, would be a shame if someone called it sexist"

That's mistakes my perspective. You are likely either Eugine trying to circumvent his ban or somone without a real stake in this forum. I do care about this forum and also regularly attend LW meetups.

I know that there are woman who don't participate on the LW forum but who do participate on meetups. Reinventing LW2.0 means shifting LW into being more welcoming to those people.

Even before reading Richard posts I predicted the post to drive away people and my prediction was accurate. Far from being mind-killed I made an accurate prediction. Most people who leave LW also don't post publically about the reasons why the leave.

I have little to gain by calling LW sexist.

An SJW is someone who engages in certain types of behavior, and your "nice forum you got here, would be a shame if someone called it sexist"-style blackmail here was definitely SJW-behavior. You don't get to act like a SJW and then complain when someone calls you out on it.

As a result of mind-kill you confuse the issue of what's true from the social level of complaining and winning arguments.

As far as truth goes it's irrational to think that a the actions in a single case determine who someone happens to be.

The more extreme position the more trouble one can get into for attempting fact based discussion.

That's basically if you don't know how to setup the debate. Part of my upbringing as far as having political conversations was a debating seminar by people from the Cambridge debating society who considered it important that and position can be defended.

EphemeralNight and you hide behind anonymity, and can therefore speak without much personal consequences anyway. My own real world identity is linked to this account. Richard's also is.

It's not good for LW to move to a point where only people who want to hide their idenity want to participate.

Also, what do you consider an "extreme" position for purposes of this rule? Can you cite any instance where you applied this to any position that was to "extreme" left-wing?

Most of the time people don't try to make points on LW by telling stories. Can you point to a single parable that someone posted on LW that you think I should have opposed based on my standards but didn't?

Comment author: Old_Gold 14 February 2016 04:09:07AM 1 point [-]

I know that there are woman who don't participate on the LW forum but who do participate on meetups. Reinventing LW2.0 means shifting LW into being more welcoming to those people.

Would they contribute anything besides starting witch hunts. If the very existence of a single post at -19 is enough to drive them away, things don't look good in their favor.

As far as truth goes it's irrational to think that a the actions in a single case determine who someone happens to be.

"I only murdered someone once, I'm not a murderer."