= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
skeptical_lurker comments on The outline of Maletopia - 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 (86)
There is a lot of evidence about where gays live from dating sites, for instance. I dunno if any of it is available to scientists, but nevertheless I would expect to see some evidence of outbreak clusters. Please link to your empirical evidence.
Even if this is true, would it not be more proportional to bar gay adults from jobs which involve contact with children, rather than having them all killed?
This post has gone from -4, 0% positive to 8, 64% positive since I last looked at it. This is suspicious in and of itself. But you are literally calling for the murder of several million men in the US alone. Since when did advocating holocausts gain upvotes?
I think there may be an NRx upvote brigade around.
Also, isn't advocating any sort of violence, especially holocaust-level mass murder, against the site rules?
This is recently a repeating pattern.
I consider it much less harmful than strategic downvoting of opponents (at least the innocent bystanders don't get caught in the crossfire), but I would prefer if people who get negative feedback learned from it, instead of organizing an upvote brigade.
The line between "I upvote this comment because I like it" and "I upvote this comment because it comes from my tribe" is very thin, sometimes invisible, because people usually do genuinely like comments expressing the ideas of their tribe. I just hope that individuals who prefer to read this website will realize that the absence of tribality is what contributes to its quality.
The proper solution for having a website that follows the values of some tribe is to create another website. It is not impossible to create another website that rationalists will read: see Slate Star Codex. Unless you expect that rationalists would not be interested in reading a website of your tribe. In which case it shouldn't be a surprise that they are also not interested in reading the same kind of content on LessWrong.
Its more than this - if people don't realise that upvote brigades exist (probably using sockpuppets) then it gives the impression that a substantial proportion of LWers endorse mass murder.
Also, Ozy's blog has unmoderated discussion where advocating genocide is ok, there's 'more right' etc.
Additionally if you look at advancedatheist's profile he is close to straddling 50% upvotes vs downvotes, as do an extremely large fraction of his posts as you would expect from the upvote brigade going until they just barely cancel out the downvotes, and the upvotes always come after the downvotes. Observed many times myself with things id responded to thatd gone heavily invisible universally negative going to roundabout plus 3 or 4 and then staying there as the percent positive edges ever closer to 50 percent and the inferred number of votes climbs. Id call the existence of said upvote brigade pretty much an established fact. Then combine it with AA's habit of injecting non sequiter references to popular nrx pua etc brigade topics where they make zero sense to bring up... AA and friends are trolling us. I estimate that at least a quarter and possibly more than a third his posts in the last few months exhibit this behavior at some point, though its difficult to find a good sampling because of the way downvoted comments disappear from user pages and some of the brigaded posts subsequently slip down.
Edit: further brigade evidence. I got a mass downvote blast spread across many posts in November shortly after calling Anissimov on some of his bullshit (in one of my most upvoted comments of all time).
Yeah, I am starting to think AA sounds more like an insane troll caricature of NRx. What I find disappointing is that AA is doing this using the same username as he uses for posting actual useful stuff about cryonics and life extention, cos he has to realise he's making these areas look bad by association. (I really don't like guilt by association, but the halo effect is a thing) Its certainly not helping NRx either, cos firstly getting caught using upvote brigades shows they can't win a fair argument and secondly getting caught using upvote brigades shows they are incompetent enough to get caught.
Was that when I said it was bizzare that Anissimov regards transexuals (0.1% of the population) to be a threat, he denied this was his attitude, I apologised, and then you argued that he had been trying to expel Justine Tunney from NRx because she's trans, and a massive argument developed?
Huh, that was you. That was the time yes, though I was more reacting to him saying something along the lines of 'when have I ever spoken about the dangers of gays and transsexuals' and I did a google search and found a very clear example example in literally 20 seconds that I linked to and quoted and got upvoted for, and me being irritated at the fact that he was misdirecting people in a hilariously obvious fashion by using that controversy that I still don't quite understand to give false impressions about and misrepresent himself and his posse. I gave very nearly zero shits about the particular internal controversy, though its far from clear to me how anyone can read anything from that guy and come to a different conclusion especially considering you can't trust him to talk about himself accurately.
I do know that disgust with that whole thread and the people that cropped up both there and all over other comment threads shortly thereafter significantly increased the length of time my sabbatical from this site for the purposes of manuscript writing lasted. Took people talking big bang cosmology to tempt me back.
This happens with most of AdvancedAtheist's trollish comments. They get downvoted then eventually quickly upvoted back to 0 or 1. It's been noticed before (just check recent open threads.) My guess is he is self-upvoting with sockpuppets.
He didn't literally call for the murder of anybody. He's claiming that there's a logical inconsistency in giving people 3000 years ago credit for the rationality of their views on lepers and pork, but condemning them for having irrational views on homosexuality. I think. Or he's arguing that tolerating gay adults does or may make it more likely for children to become gay, and so while we might criticize their values, we shouldn't engage in the routine practice of calling people "ignorant" because they disagree with our values.
It's not inconsistent to acknowledge the occasional rightness of a stopped clock.
It's inconsistent to call ideas about the transmission of homosexuality "superstition" because they turned out to be wrong (if they did; I don't know the research), yet not call ideas about the transmission of leprosy "superstition", just because they turned out to be right. The people at that time had roughly equal reason to believe either proposition. Detection of the transmission of leprosy is extremely hard to detect, so much so that for much of the 20th century, doctors said it was not transmissible.
I think his claim is that people are illicitly labeling people who disagree with their values as irrational.
Ok, so to be logically consistent, if your values are that homosexuality is as bad as leprosy (!) and you believe its contagious, then you isolate the homosexuals, you don't kill them.
So... he's claiming that the only logically consistent position is that people are right about everything or wrong about everything?
He could have said something about homosexuality being a sin, or wrong, or against his values. He didn't. He said:
Maybe strictly speaking this isn't an explicit call for murder, but it does seem implicit.
Incidentally, I would also be opposed to the murder of lepers, despite the fact that leprosy does objectively exist.
To make it absolutely clear, I am not bothered by the hypothesis that homosexuality is caused by pathogens, not that I think its particularly plausible. I just think that trying to fight the spread of a hypothetical non-lethal disease by murdering millions of people is ... words fail me.