Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015

Gondolinian

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Previous Open Thread

Next Open Thread

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

The equivalence I think you're appealing to doesn't look real to me.

It's not identical, but similar.

In the first case, each person is downvoting something they disapprove of

First, I think there as a fair bit of disapproving because of a person they disapprove of, because of his views. The comments against the post seem to include a lot of analysis of AA's general behavior, not specific textual analysis of the post.

advancedatheist gets approximately zero benefit of the doubt at this point.

That's about the person, not about the particular post. A particular chunk of text doesn't need a "benefit of the doubt", it needs to be read.

Voting down a post because of the person, and not the post, was the primary charge against Eugine. If he voted down 50 votes, but detailed the specific failings of each post, what grounds would there have been to boot him?

Second, Eugine's crime was the violation of list norms on the use of karma. Is it not a violation of the professed list norms to vote an article down just because you disapprove of their views?

that he is not participating here in good faith because he seems only really to be interested in popularizing PUA

Since when is it bad faith to have a particular hobby horse that one rides? I see a lot of "ethical altruism" posts and comments. You voting those down too?

And no, what people are doing here is not existentially identical to what Eugine did. "Not exactly the same as the tarred and feathered pariah" is not exactly the greatest defense.

Let's suppose you're right about what's happened to advancedatheist: he posts something with a particular political/social leaning, lots of leftish people don't like it, and they pile on and downvote it into oblivion.

OK, let's suppose I'm right. That's usually a good bet.

Do you consider such behavior acceptable? Desirable? Consistent with the professed norms of behavior of the list?

No, he really didn't. Not remotely. This is the article in question. (Right?)

Yes. That was the article.

Much to his credit, Kaj admitted that he had unfairly cast his opponents as "morally reprehensible". http://lesswrong.com/lw/dc5/thoughts_on_moral_intuitions/71uz

Argue with him about it if you like. I did my time on that one.

Kaj's article is perfectly relevant to JoshuaZ's claim here:

that if someone was throwing into comments asides about how the Republican party was racist or sexist, or similar remarks, I'd downvote that person and they'd end up in a pretty similar situation.

The scenario he described happened, and the author did not end up in a similar situation as AA. Far from it, he was applauded.

"Benefit of the doubt"

Yes, giving (or not giving) someone the benefit of the doubt on a particular occasion involves your opinions about the personally and not just what they've done on that occasion. No, I don't see why that should be a problem. (Suppose an LW poster whom you know to be sensible and intelligent posts something that seems surprisingly stupid. I hope you'll give serious consideration to the possibility that you've misunderstood, or they're being ironic, or there's some subtlety they've seen and you haven't. Failing that, you'll pr... (read more)

3JoshuaZ11y

It should be easy to see how these situations are different. A well-respected user made an article with a large amount of other content, and explicitly was trying their best to model a wide varity of people who they disagree with. (And mind you many people would likely upvote Kaj by default simply based on their general inclination. This clear happens with some of the more popular writers here. Heck, I've occasionally upvoted some of gwern's posts before I've finished reading them). This is not the scenario in question where the comments are being put into repeated comments that have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand and where this is almost all the comments the user in question has. Kaj was specifically talking about how people think about politics and trying to be charitable (failing at properly doing so apparently but that's not for lack of trying.) And now imagine Kaj kept doing shoving such comments in while going through apparently almost zero effort to actually respond to either questions or criticisms. That would be the scenario under discussion. I (and I suspect many people here) would not react to you the way they've reacted to AA partially because you respond to comments and frankly when you do have political statements, they are generally more clearly laid out, more reasonable, and more interesting than the throw-away cheering remarks that AA has. I am however, surprised by how downvoted your initial comment was there- it does have serious issues such as the claim that Kaj doesn't have regular conservative readers, but it is surprisingly downvoted; I do have to wonder if part of that is a status thing (Kaj being of relatively high status here and you being of status more in my range or slightly higher). However, that's not a great explanation and it does make me update in the direction of their being some for lack of a better term, liberal pile-ons. Incidentally, note that your guess that I had downvoted you in that thread was wrong: I had

10

Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015

10

10

10

Open thread, Jan. 26 - Feb. 1, 2015

10

10