= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gleb_Tsipursky comments on [Link] Lifehack Article Promoting LessWrong, Rationality Dojo, and Rationality: From AI to Zombies - 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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (71)
I take the essence of trolling to be the intention of provoking an angry response. It doesn't look to me as if that was OrphanWilde's goal. (I think, rather, that he was playing to the gallery, having "tried two other tactics first" and found you "completely unresponsive".)
[EDITED to add:] Of course it's possible that OrphanWilde is not being honest about his intentions, or that he's deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting his previous attempts at engagement. So what he's written is compatible with an intention to troll. But he hasn't admitted to trying to troll you, which is what I think you're saying he has done.
Ok, let me see if I understand you correctly. You do not consider abusive statements to be trolling? Abusive statements to me by their definition are meant to provoke an angry response.
Correct: I don't consider them to be trolling. If you make that intention part of your definition of "abusive" then I think they aren't abusive either, for precisely that reason. (Personally I wouldn't say that "abusive" implies intention to provoke an angry response, and I would categorize some of what OrphanWilde's written about you as abusive.)
Ok, then I think we have differences in our interpretation of words like "abusive" and "meant to provoke an angry response." Let's get more specific and concrete to ground things out with an example. For example, OrphanWilde using terms like "you are creepy" to me are ad hominem attacks intentionally meant to provoke an angry response. Would an external observer reading this comment think that this is an ad hominem attack intentionally meant to provoke an angry response - what do you think?
You don't think he actually finds you creepy? Are you sure?
He clearly indicated that his use of such language was intentional. He also admitted to lying in an attempt to harm my reputation. So while I cannot be sure - no one can be except himself - a Bayesian approach would point to probabilistic likelihood of deliberate use of provocative ad hominem language as a trolling technique.
LOL. You're on LW, y'know, not Lifehack. People like me will look at you taking a random collection of keywords, throwing them all into a blender set on high, and then regurgitating them onto a page -- and be not impressed.
To quote My Cousin Vinny, "...everything that guy just said is bullshit" X-)
Don't be dismissive. If you disagree, make an actual argument and lay out your disagreements. Thanks!
Why not? A lot of things ought be dismissed.
Well, I suppose I'm an external observer (I promise that I am neither OrphanWilde nor Gleb_Tsipursky), and I would say yes it's an ad hominem attack but no it's probably not intended to provoke an angry response. I would guess that other external observers with the same context available to them as to me would mostly say the same.
I perceive an ad hominem attack as by its nature designed to provoke an angry response.
Why?
It seems to me that there are plenty of other obvious reasons why people might make ad hominem attacks. For instance:
In this particular case I think the first and last of those are the most likely motives.