You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gjm comments on [Link] Lifehack Article Promoting LessWrong, Rationality Dojo, and Rationality: From AI to Zombies - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 14 November 2015 08:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (71)
Tags: effectivealtruism ea intentionalinsights wordspreading agency raisingsanitywaterline rationality

Comments (71)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 18 November 2015 11:31:27PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: gjm 19 November 2015 10:01:53AM 1 point [-]

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.)

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 19 November 2015 05:53:25PM 0 points [-]

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?

Comment author: Lumifer 19 November 2015 05:59:41PM 4 points [-]

You don't think he actually finds you creepy? Are you sure?

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 19 November 2015 10:48:06PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 20 November 2015 04:31:24PM *  3 points [-]

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-)

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 23 November 2015 01:01:28AM -2 points [-]

Don't be dismissive. If you disagree, make an actual argument and lay out your disagreements. Thanks!

Comment author: Lumifer 23 November 2015 03:42:24PM 3 points [-]

Don't be dismissive.

Why not? A lot of things ought be dismissed.

Comment author: gjm 19 November 2015 07:45:46PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 19 November 2015 10:38:43PM 0 points [-]

I perceive an ad hominem attack as by its nature designed to provoke an angry response.

Comment author: gjm 20 November 2015 12:56:27AM 1 point [-]

Why?

It seems to me that there are plenty of other obvious reasons why people might make ad hominem attacks. For instance:

  • They might expect them to influence other people in a direction they like. (I would guess that this motivation is substantially more common than desire to provoke an angry response.)
  • They might be angry (or otherwise upset) themselves, for whatever reason, and respond as angry people often do by attacking in any way that presents itself.
  • They might be failing to distinguish between an idea and the person presenting it, and be only dimly aware that what they're doing is an ad hominem attack at all.
  • They might be hoping to provoke (not an angry response but) reflection on the part of the person being attacked ("wow, I had no idea anyone would react so strongly to what I said; could there be something wrong with it?"). I doubt this works very often, but there might be cases where it's a reasonable last resort.

In this particular case I think the first and last of those are the most likely motives.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit