You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

argumzio comments on A case study in fooling oneself - Less Wrong Discussion

-2 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 15 December 2011 05:25AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (79)

Comments (79)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: argumzio 15 December 2011 06:33:43AM 4 points [-]

That sounds believable. My post has already been down-voted. Why? Who knows.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2011 06:37:46AM 7 points [-]

That sounds believable. My post has already been down-voted. Why? Who knows.

I downvoted you for the troll speak - that is, the billigerent defiance of the negative perception of your own behavior and the generalization of the defiance of karma to all cases, not just a specific disagreement.

Comment author: argumzio comment score below threshold [+] (0 children)

Comment author: argumzio comment score below threshold [+] (2 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2011 06:47:35AM 4 points [-]

The behavior isn't negative, but the perception of it is, therefore I'm unjustified in being quite disgusted by it?

I express disgust with specific instances of voting. I downvote generalised defiance and "I'm going to leave" bluster. It's not a big deal - I just prefer that people don't make comments like that and so I downvote them.

And suggesting that someone is a troll is by far the most bathetic exercise of non-rational discourse. But, go ahead, down-vote this, too, if you feel better by it.

The specific comment contained trollspeak - you are not a troll.

Comment author: argumzio 15 December 2011 06:52:13AM 1 point [-]

I express disgust with specific instances of voting.

Okay, I see your point. But the way the voting system is set up, it generalizes across one's presence on the website, hence "karma".

To be clear, I wasn't being "defiant". I asked a very specific question, expecting specific input, not a down-vote and being told (in a "put up or shut up" fashion) that I am just wrong. Well, LW is looking less inviting as a place for truly "rational discourse". But I digress.

"I'm going to leave" bluster.

I thought it was clear that if the question was answered in the affirmative (with clear reasoning), then it would be reasonable for someone to leave such a forum. I stand by that, too, because it would be a waste of my time to put thought into posts and to have them down-voted out of existence. It is wise for a community (if that's what it is) to consider its own nature from a meta-stand point. Is LW a treasure trove of instances of "fooling oneself"? A case study leads to many others.

argumzio comments on A case study in fooling oneself - Less Wrong Discussion

Article Navigation

Comments (79)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Open Threads

Recent Rationality Diaries

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (79)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login