So, gwern is a missing stair? http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
Telling someone who's been harmed by a missing stair, "Well, the harm done to you is outweighed by all the benefit the rest of us have accrued, so you're just going to accept being treated like crap so the rest of us can continue receiving this benefit" might sound reasonable from a utilitarian perspective, but from the perspective of the person who actually has to deal with it, it doesn't sound so reasonable. If the people in charge of Less Wrong want to run it like the Catholic Church, handing out indulgences to those who make sufficient contributions, I suppose that's their choice, but they might want to consider how that worked out for the Catholic Church.
"He's one of leading figures, so no one should complain about anything he does" doesn't sound at all like something a cult would say.
Ignore what you perceive to be unfair
Here's a radical idea: how about we don't shrug our shoulders and say "That's the way it is"? How about instead we try to improve the world?
Not everyone can be Yvain-like insightful, productive and virtuous, all at the same time.
Yes, but people can refrain from being outright assholes, and other people can call them out when they do act like assholes.
Apparently, I am not entitled to be treated with basic civility. Or, at least, not according to gwern. It started when gwern wrote
>>All you're saying is that Saddam called the USA's bluff and was wrong and it was disastrous. That could EASILY have happened with an attempt by the US to demand inspections from Russia.
>Um, no, because the USSR had no reason to think and be correct in thinking it served a useful role for the USA which meant the threats were bluffs that were best ridden out lest it damage both allies' long-term goals.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kfd/a_parable_of_elites_and_takeoffs/b1xz
I read this as saying the USSR should call the bluff, which made no sense in relation to gwern's other posts. When I asked whether this was actually what was intended, gwern got pissed off, insisted that there was no way a good faith reading could see the post as saying that, and accused me of deliberately misunderstanding. I have bent over backwards to resolve this civilly, but my repeated attempts to get gwern to explain how I had misunderstood the sentence achieved nothing but the accusation that I was making an “underhanded” effort to get gwern to respond. Despite not being willing to discuss the matter in *that* thread, gwern brought the matter up in a comment thread for a completely different article. Throughout our encounters, gwern has been incredibly rude, referring to me as an “idiot” and “troll” (rather hypocritical, given the ridiculously silly claims made by gwern, such as that "A, therefore, A" is not a circular argument), and generally treating me with an utter lack of respect. And in defense, gwern has pointed to high karma and being here a long time as making any accusation of inappropriate behavior “presumptuous”. Because apparently, the popular kids can't be criticized by mere common folk.
Looking at the stats, gwern is indeed the top recent contributor, which makes this behavior all the more worthy of comment. If some random poster were being rude, that would be worrisome, but the fact that the top contributor thinks that a high karma score is license to egregiously violate Wheton's rule suggests that there may be something wrong with the site as a whole.
EY has referred to a need to have this be a “Well-Kept Garden”. So I would like to know whether gwern's behavior is the sort of thing that people here think is acceptable in this garden.