= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Open Thread April 4 - April 10, 2016 - 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 (211)
What makes you think I didn't notice what Lumifer's argument was actually about?
I suggest that your assessment of that is strongly coloured by your completely incorrect characterization of the rest of the thread. You've already issued one correction -- indeed, my first response to Lumifer was not the post-hoc prediction you said it was (which would indeed have been inconsistent with my stated opinions). Here are some more. I didn't call Lumifer out; dxu did, my entry to the thread was an attempt to correct a misunderstanding. Given that I didn't start the thread, I'm not sure how I could possibly "admit that the thread was" anything.
I explained why I don't want to argue about it any more. I'm not sure exactly what you consider immature or irresponsible about that.
I would just like to point out that my entry point into this discussion was actually rather similar to your own, in that I was simply clarifying some of (what I thought were) Viliam's points. This whole thread actually got started because SquirrelInHell proposed a "niceness norm", Lumifer (as is his/her wont) began poking at it, and then Viliam took the opportunity to say some things that (I assume) he's been wanting to say for a while. I do think OrphanWilde's accusation of you was misplaced, but I would be cautious in accusing anyone else of "starting it"; for the record, I genuinely don't think this thread was anyone's "fault"--in fact, I would argue that, if nothing else, this thread allowed several people (including myself) to express some things that might in other contexts have been considered socially impermissible. So it wasn't entirely a bad thing.
Finally, because I feel like this discussion has been rather grim for a while now, and because this is (after all) the place to discuss the positivity thread, have an emoticon:
:D
"You're too stupid to have this discussion with" is also an explanation about why you wouldn't want to argue with somebody. One I've used, albeit with different words. But it also flies in the face of your argument about rudeness detracting from Less Wrong.