= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hankx7787 comments on Young Cryonicist Gathering Warning - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (44)
I actually agree with this completely. That was my main piece of constructive advice for the conference: more unstructured time. The best conversations were around the hot tub. Funny how that works.
Hank,
That is not your call to make. If you don't like how the conference is run, don't go. Encourage others not to go by telling them how the event is organized, not by throwing around wild, entitled accusations of mental illness. There is no evidence that the conference organizer is mentally ill. Writing "lol" is the functional equivalent of pointing and laughing - what gave you the right to point and laugh? You shouldn't be surprised that appearing and being petty is not rewarded in this forum.
If you had written what iceman wrote, you wouldn't have been downvoted. NPOV writing enhances credibility, and you are going out of your way to avoid NPOV. In fact, you seem surprised that your wisecracking is not being appreciated.
I'm sympathetic to the people hurt by the conference organizer. I have suspicions about behind the scenes issues that the conference organizer has not revealed because the issues would make the organizer look bad - even if they aren't illegal or immoral or even the organizer's fault.
By contrast, your original post seems uninterested in their problems or in the quality of the conference, except as a bloody shirt for you to wield to support your ad hominem attacks.
You have made this reply to Hank in response to (perhaps) the only comment by Hank in this thread to which it isn't a valid response.
The grandparent (in particular and perhaps to the exclusion of the other rants) is an entirely legitimate position. Giving an evaluation on which component is most valuable is his call. You don't need to agree with it and the organizers do not need to comply with the advice but he is not "out of his place" to make it.
Given the rest of the context, (particularly hankx7787's other response to iceman's post), I'm not confident that he understands the distinction between appropriate criticism and the organizer being required to follow his advice.
But I agree with you that the distinction is valid, and criticism without the necessity to comply is completely appropriate in this context.