= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on Engaging Intellectual Elites at Less Wrong - 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 (136)
Are you going to explain why, or just keep re-asserting it?
This is just based on my personal observations from spending a lot of time on both traditionally moderated forums and on reddit and LW. In particular I feel more open to express myself on a forum where downvotes are the main form of punishment rather than banning.
He did. You are being disingenuous.
ShardPhoenix did not come close to establishing that you could expect moderation to be biased enough that it would be worse.
ShardPhoenix explained. Whether you your or paper-machine happen to disagree with that explanation is an entirely different question to whether he explained. As such, this question is logically rude.
ShardPhoenix did not explain this (i.e. why those effects are stronger, not that they exist), and that was what the supposedly-logically-rude comment was in reference to.
Providing some set of effects that enter into a complex interplay and then asserting that they dominate is an incomplete argument. Noticing this is nothing like the examples of logical rudeness in your link. It's not approaching this either.
If you believe that, I've got an invisible dragon in my garage up for sale.