= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brillyant comments on Voiceofra is banned - 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 (222)
I stop by when I have time or interest. I don't have the intelligence or writing skills to contribute much high level content. I consume LW when it's good and try to comment my honest thoughts when they seem relevant.
But you do have time to drop by and criticize content people do produce, right?
Criticism originating from unqualified people should be encouraged. People don't like criticism from people, who don't do what they propose others to do, for social, not rational, reasons. “You think this band's music is rubbish, well write your own music then” is a fallacy. If I go to a restaurant and get terrible food, there's no reason I should become a cook before being allowed to rebuke it.
I don't think your band analogy holds. The person is a member of the community that stands or falls by what its members do. In this case, it's a choice between cursing the darkness or turning on the light.
The type of criticism from Brillyant is low effort and fairly useless. Lots of people write one liners bemoaning the decline of LW. What is the point of doing that?
They didn't just bemoan the decline, they stated the precise condition (in their opinion) of LW prosperity. I personally believe that LW needs a hero, and it's necessary and sufficient condition. Someone, who'd basically repeat Yudkowsky's feat. But am I Yudkowsky, or even Luke Muehlhauser, level smart to fulfill that role? Hell no. But there's nothing bad in sharing my opinion, because maybe it would make other people rethink their actions and expectations.
It's not obvious to me that LW needs a hero. A cohort of excellent posters would be enough.
I agree with you on this, and I think this is an enormous problem. Somehow this need is written into the rationalist DNA, and I think to grow, the rationalist community needs to move past this.
It doesn't matter what Yudkowsky does, it matters what (generic) "you" do. In fact, our good friend Yudkowsky said so himself, more or less, if you don't want to take my word for it.
edit: I think it is also very important to let go of "intelligence" as a single number on your character sheet. That's a really toxic way to think.
If low effort, only because it's obvious to anyone who is paying attention. If useless, only because it's been repeated so many times by so many people.
My initial reaction when I stop back and see a thread discussing banning procedures regarding voting on old content is, "Really? But that's not important. LW doesn't have anything interesting to read anymore and the good people on here (Nancy) are talking about banning people for voting down old stuff... Hm. That's dumb. I should say something to let them know that's dumb."
I suppose the point is that someone would become aware of the lack of content and try to fix it. And that they would recognize this is the biggest priority, and that it dwarfs banning protocol discussions. I don't know how to fix it. And LW isn't "mine" in any meaningful sense. I try to fix things that are mine, and if I was an LW power user, and felt such ownership, I would help beyond commenting on what I see.
Maybe the answer is to not fix LW? Maybe it's dead? Who knows.
Anyway, Merry Christmas. :)
It's low effort because it took you 10 seconds to think it and write it.
Seems to me there is little reason for you to offer advice at all, then.
Perhaps you ought to start a thread proposing bans on obvious feedback from users below X karma?
I don't care about karma (or bans).