= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Open thread, Oct. 6 - Oct. 12, 2014 - 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 (332)
Please note that none of those links points to a LessWrong page. They are two personal blogs. Personal blogs don't have to follow LW policies.
I consider Moldbug almost completely irrelevant for LW. He has a few fans here, but they are a tiny minority (probably fewer than e.g. religious LW members). We don't consider him a rationalist blogger, and don't link to him in a list of rationalist blogs.
Scott is a LW member who has posted a few articles here; that is much more relevant. But anyway, SSC is his personal blog. (Also, his articles seem sufficiently sane to me -- I would love to see more political debates be done like this.)
I guess we need a definition of some core principles of LW community, so the newcomers know what is canonical and what is not. May I suggest Sequences?
This seems like a significant understatement given that Scott has the second highest karma of all-time on LW (after only Eliezer). Even if he doesn't post much here directly anymore, he's still probably the biggest thought leader the broader rational community has right now.
I agree with ahbwramc. Going From California with An Aching Heart doesn't seem to be something written by someone only kinda involved with the rationalist community.
First of all, mea culpa.
I should have provided more context to assuage confusion. The Talon is an alternative social justice publication at a local university. Their editorial board overlaps with the skeptic community in Vancouver itself, which is quite insular, which overlaps with the rationality meetup in Vancouver, too.
There has been some ideological bickering, name-calling, and signaling allegiance to a coalition of classic skeptic community v. Less Wrong perspectives on the Internet, and at various meetups, maybe at pubs, in Vancouver. I myself, among others, may not have engaged in discussions, or debates, as judiciously as would have been prudent. This also involved arguments over articles written on Slate Star Codex, which 'social justice warriors', as some call them(selves), find upsetting.
However, none of us here on Less Wrong knew there was enough chatter going around that the first time I meet a journalist, he knew who I was, and asked him why my friends held such peculiar beliefs that are out of line with mainstream scientific consensus if we're 'rationalists'. He was a friendly guy I actually like, but his misconceptions seemed worrisome, if he wanted to profile people I know personally. I don't want a schism rising in my neck of the woods where my friends and I are seen as kooky neckbeards as soon as we enter a public space.
Yeah, when someone is very famous on LW, then even if they publish something on their private blog, it feels like an "idea connected with LW", especially if the readerships overlap. :(
No idea what to do about this. I support Scott's right to write whatever he wants on his blog; and the rules of LW do not apply for his blog. On the other hand, yes, people will see the connection anyway. It's like when someone is a celebrity, they lose their private life, because everything they do is a food for gossip.
(Heck, Scott doesn't even write under the same name on LW and SSC. But everyone knows anyway. What a horrible thing; not only one has to hide their true name, but even keep their individual pseudonyms hidden from each other.)
Uhm, I missed the connection somewhere. As far as I know, social justice warriors are not mainstream scientific consensus. And Scott doesn't blog about many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. :)
Okay, now seriously. I think you maybe overestimate the mainstream status of SJWs. What's upsetting for them, is not necessarily upsetting for an average person. And optimizing for them... pretty much means following their doctrines, or avoiding discussing any social issues.
(Connotationally: I am not saying "upsetting SJWs is okay", although I am also not saying it isn't. Just that SJWs are not mainstream. So do we worry about the image in the eyes of mainstream, or in the eyes of SJWs?)
An unavoidable consequences of promoting rationality is upsetting the irrational.