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.

MixedNuts comments on Open Thread, November 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 02 November 2012 02:11AM

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

Comments (373)

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

Comment author: MixedNuts 22 November 2012 12:34:24PM 17 points [-]

Well, I am a weird fruit. </completely missing the point>

There's something... dissonant... about putting gwern on trial and deliberating on whether he's guilty of second-degree shitheadedness. It doesn't sound like the right question to ask; gwern has explained how the inside of his head works, and I've given advice for not acting like a dick taking his explanations into account. I don't see the point of determining which mean names he should be called, even for the purpose of social punishment.

I'm confused by the ethics of inner prejudice. I would certainly prefer gwern not to need to control himself to be decent to transpeople, and barring that I would prefer him to control himself 24/7 without going wonky in the head. But since that is not to be, what are we supposed to do? Boycott his statistical analysis of Harry Potter fanfic?

Comment author: [deleted] 22 November 2012 05:17:42PM -1 points [-]

There's something... dissonant... about putting gwern on trial and deliberating on whether he's guilty of second-degree shitheadedness

That'd be another point missed. I am not interested in a ritual condemnation of gwern, or advocating for it (or chastising you for failing to advocate for it). I am a bit confused at what exactly your standards are, such that the behavior described (do you feel my description is inaccurate?) doesn't get to be fairly described in such terms.

It doesn't sound like the right question to ask;

Then why did you ask it, and answer in the negative, by stating Gwern hadn't done anything horrible? Isn't that intrinsically subjective? Why the need to defend the behavior as something no reasonable person could take issue with? That's what I'm getting at here.

But since that is not to be, what are we supposed to do?

Not go out of your way to absolve him of it either? This isn't like, a ravening mob with pitchforks and torches calling for Gwern's blood. Your options are not limited to a choice between offering sanctuary and tossing him to the wolves, and it's kind of scary that you appear to view it that way.