Lumifer comments on Open Thread Feb 29 - March 6, 2016 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Elo 28 February 2016 10:11PM

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

Comments (285)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 03 March 2016 04:22:47PM 2 points [-]

the point being that being proselytized at is annoying

Cryonics? EA? Occasional animal welfare?

But it doesn't actually match how most people use the word "cult".

There is a traditional definition out of The Devil's Dictionary:

  • Religion -- a large successful cult

  • Cult -- a small unsuccessful religion

:-)

So, is Viliam using "cult" to mean "movement I disapprove of" here?

I think it was just a pretty clear fnord.

Comment author: gjm 03 March 2016 05:26:00PM 1 point [-]

Cryonics? EA? Occasional animal welfare?

I see little proselytizing for cryonics here; back in the OB days there was more of it, much of it coming from Eliezer, and yes I did find it a little annoying. (Only a little, because there wasn't very much even then.) I'm a fan of EA myself, so am not in the right target audience to be annoyed by it. My impression is that most LWers are too. There's maybe one bit of animal welfare advocacy a year.

None of this much resembles the situation with NRx, where it seems like any time anyone says anything about race or gender you can rely on someone coming along to point out the inferiority of black people and women. I expect it isn't actually that bad, of course; these things usually feel worse than they are. But the proselytism to pre-existing support ratio is, I'm pretty certain, much higher for NRx than for those other things.

There is a traditional definition out of The Devil's Dictionary

Yes, I already acknowledged that it's a common complaint that people use the word "cult" that way. I am suggesting that that isn't actually how people use it. (You are well aware that TDD is a big mass of snark and doesn't in any useful sense purport to give actual definitions, I assume.)

I think it was just a pretty clear fnord.

Not a fnord but an overt criticism. (Possibly an unfair criticism, but that's not the same thing as a fnord.)

Comment author: Lumifer 03 March 2016 05:34:10PM 1 point [-]

None of this much resembles the situation with NRx, where it seems like any time anyone says anything about race or gender you can rely on someone coming along to point out the inferiority of black people and women.

First, I don't think that's true. Second, you're conflating NRx and HBD/race-realism/etc. and these are quite different things. And I haven't seen anyone pointing out the general inferiority of women in a long while. Inferiority in specific areas (like upper body strength), certainly, but I don't see why this is a problem.

Comment author: gjm 03 March 2016 11:39:52PM 0 points [-]

you're conflating

No, I'm observing that they seem to overlap a lot.

I haven't seen anyone pointing out the general inferiority of women in a long while.

No, it's usually just a claim that women are less intelligent, or (in the more nuanced cases) not so good at the kinds of thinking required for, say, science or mathematics.