= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on Open Thread Feb 29 - March 6, 2016 - 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 (285)
The problem was they were not able to stop talking about it. Because they had no other platform than Less Wrong where they could present their ideas to wider audience and try recruiting new people.
Also they loved to pretend that the rationalist community as a whole somehow supports their political beliefs, despite the polls showing cca 3% support.
Then at some moment Eliezer became tired of being known as "the guy who hosts the neoreactionary website" and publicly disowned them. They moved their politics to their own website called "More Right" (as you see, they still couldn't stop making hints that they are somehow connected with LW), so they finally had some other outlet.
(It also didn't help their PR that the known vote-manipulator Eugine was their supporter. I know, that's merely an argument by association, but it doesn't help to keep the debate rational and try avoiding mindkilling, if one side has a member that keeps mass-downvoting everyone who disagrees.)
Thank you for the history. That was before my time. Or maybe I just missed that.
But this is consistent with my observations. It's not really politics that is the target of the ban, it's a certain type of politics.
By your own reporting, they were connected to the LW site. That's where they came from, until they were booted off as untouchables. It's part of their own history that LW was the incubator for their site. And given that they were booted from LW for their views, sticking a thumb in the eye of LW is entirely predictable. The name is triply appropriate, given the politics. It would have been too obvious and too good a name to pass up. I would have used it.
FWIW, I agree despite being very unfavourably disposed towards their political views.
Nope, it's a certain type of behavior.
Nope.
Yes, this attitude is a part of the behavior.
Generally, you guys love to behave like predators. Never take "no" for an answer, double down when someone refuses to debate with you (but when someone does, it's obvious you don't listen anyway), then switch to karma assassinations when arguments fail, or otherwise threaten revenge. You probably believe that this is the right (pun intended) strategy, and if only you stay persistent enough, everyone will sooner or later bend over and take it in the ass. Thus sayeth Gnon or whichever idiotic abbreviation you worship today.
Meanwhile, in the real world, being an asshole often works short-term, but in longer term, there are some complications. Such as being publicly recognized for what you are, and not being welcome among people who have higher standards of interaction.
By the way, you guys are much less different from the SJW predators than either side would admit, except that they are pros (because they were selected from a much larger pool of candidates) and you are mostly wankers. Just saying, because you are going to downvote this comment anyway.
But don't mind me. Follow your own strategy and see where it leads you.
Oh, boy. Who's that "you guys"? I don't think bbdd is one of the NRx.
In any case, let me point out that you just threw a hissy fit. That wasn't a good move... X-/
Sure. I'm going to spend the rest of the day offline, to clear my mind.
Downvoted for the kind of attitude actually described in Politics Is The Mind-Killer, the NRxs historically tending v to be the worst offenders is irrelevant.
Nope. Banning a certain type of behavior was used as cover for banning a certain politics.
I don't see behavior as the issue identified here, I see being associated with certain political ideas.
If you want to be nitpicky, then yes, they personally weren't booted, just discussion of the offending ideas was booted.
Are you passing out honorary NR degrees? Don't think I'm entirely on board, though they make a lot of good points.
It's predatory to discuss ideas. It's not predatory to prevent people from discussing ideas through institutional power.
Isn't it inconvenient when people you disagree with won't shut up? Don't worry, you can probably make them.
Ah yes. Maybe I was around. I do recall discussing someone's equivalence of "NR" = "Assholes". Or maybe that was a PUA discussion. Basically, I disagree with you, therefore you're an asshole.
And you're right in the sense that having unpopular ideas often comes with a cost.
Funny, you seemed just like a SJW predator to me. "Shut up" is also their answer to ideas they disagree with.
Actually, I've upvoted one of your comments in this thread, hadn't downvoted any others, and had no intention of downvoting this one. But don't let that keep you from feeling persecuted by a mean old predator.