Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 07 July 2014 12:26:46AM *  4 points [-]

Personally, I'm glad Eugine is gone, because even without the downvoting he was an asshole.And having anti-feminist or biorealist assholes running around

A fine example of "asshole" = "those who disagree with my values".

Should those who disagree similarly start whooping it up for banning feminists and biodenialists? Or should they just be similarly denigrating them as a matter of course?

More and more, I'm thinking they need to fight back in kind.

It's strange that the supposedly evil, nasty reactionaries are social pacifists who refuse to respond with a little tit for the incessant tat they receive.

Charming to see all the karma upvotes going to a post which denigrated a whole swath of users as "assholes" because of their beliefs. Real "friendly/humanising".

Comment author: MugaSofer 16 July 2014 10:45:21AM *  1 point [-]

No way you could have seen this comment when you wrote this, so here's a heads up - it turns out that's not how it was meant.

The emphasis was intended on "asshole", not "biorealist", if you see what I mean - "biorealist" is the reason it drives off "women and minorities" specifically, not the reason he was an asshole.

I do not think all biorealists or antifeminists are assholes. I thought EUGINE was an asshole. He was also a biorealist. So he was a biorealist asshole. I've already made a comment about that, but people keep saying that I said that anyways. And quoting only me saying "biorealist assholes". I DO think biorealists and anitfeminists have to be especially epistemically polite (and generally polite) if they want to have any chance of people actually engaging with their ideas.

As an example:

Christian asshole: Fred Phelps Christian not-an-asshole: Leah Libresco

Skeptic asshole: Penn Jilette Skeptic not-an-asshole: All the CFAR people

See how I consider "assholeness" as an unrelated trait to whether or not I agree with a viewpoint. If there were prolific skeptic assholes, they would drive off religious users. If there were prolific Christian assholes they would drive of skeptic and LGBTQ users.

Comment author: daenerys 10 July 2014 09:31:22PM *  7 points [-]

Daenerys, since there seems to be some uncertainty:

Are you saying that you would prefer if LessWrong increased the height of it's metaphorical wall, keeping out "anti-feminist or biorealist assholes"?

Or are you saying that the model of a public forum is inherently "a great way to drive off women and minorities", and thus you don't use LessWrong and don't care about the moderation policy much?

I've seen different people reading your comment different ways.

Much closer to the latter. I am not making any policy recommendations about LW moderation. I don't really care, since I'm not on LW anymore (except for things like this where people ask me specifically something).

I said that one of the reasons I prefer Facebook is that it's a walled garden. I did NOT say that I want LessWrong to be a walled garden. I would think neo-reactionaries would support the idea of just going to the place that has the rules you like/ voting with your feet.

I do think there can be public forums that do not drive off women and minorities, which is where I disagree with your second statement.

I do not think all biorealists or antifeminists are assholes. I thought EUGINE was an asshole. He was also a biorealist. So he was a biorealist asshole. I've already made a comment about that, but people keep saying that I said that anyways. And quoting only me saying "biorealist assholes". I DO think biorealists and anitfeminists have to be especially epistemically polite (and generally polite) if they want to have any chance of people actually engaging with their ideas.

As an example:

Christian asshole: Fred Phelps
Christian not-an-asshole: Leah Libresco

Skeptic asshole: Penn Jilette
Skeptic not-an-asshole: All the CFAR people

See how I consider "assholeness" as an unrelated trait to whether or not I agree with a viewpoint. If there were prolific skeptic assholes, they would drive off religious users. If there were prolific Christian assholes they would drive of skeptic and LGBTQ users. All assholes tend to drive off all non-assholes.

This whole "OMG! daenerys says all biorealists are assholes and should be banned11!!!!!1" reaction feels like people are willfully misinterpreting me, putting words in my mouth, and using tiny quotes completely out of context (like "biorealist asshole") Especially AFTER I wrote a comment clarifying that I meant ONLY what I said an nothing else. This is another reason I don't LW. Commenting on LW is like reading the comments on a general website. Sometimes you get the impulse to do it, but as soon as you do you immediately remember why you don't. Note that I'm again, only EXPLAINING why I don't use LW, and am NOT demanding moderation changes.

ETA: Also, MugaSofer, I commend (and upvote) you for doing the Right Thing... When a discussion partner says something that you could interpret two ways, and Interpretation A is sane, but Interpretation B would cause you to get super-offended and launch a multi-comment barrage, the polite (non-asshole) thing to do is just to ask if they meant A or B, and NOT to just assume B and get offended and launch the multi-comment barrage. Especially when A is the literal interpretation and B requires quite a bit of twistiness to get to.

Comment author: MugaSofer 16 July 2014 10:30:28AM *  3 points [-]

I did NOT say that I want LessWrong to be a walled garden.

[...]

I do think there can be public forums that do not drive off women and minorities, which is where I disagree with your second statement.

I do not think all biorealists or antifeminists are assholes. I thought EUGINE was an asshole. He was also a biorealist. So he was a biorealist asshole.

Excellent, I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for clarifying.

MugaSofer, I commend (and upvote) you for doing the Right Thing... When a discussion partner says something that you could interpret two ways, and Interpretation A is sane, but Interpretation B would cause you to get super-offended and launch a multi-comment barrage, the polite (non-asshole) thing to do is just to ask if they meant A or B, and NOT to just assume B and get offended and launch the multi-comment barrage.

Now, in fairness, I wouldn't characterize people misunderstanding as willful, assholeish misunderstanding. Applying the Principle of Charity is the reason I understood you in the first place, right?

As I said, different people interpreted your phrasing in different ways; your phrasing was genuinely ambiguous regarding whether the operative word was "asshole" or "biorealist". I guess this shows our default assumptions about ... sentences?

Thanks for the Rationality Compliment, I'm flattered :)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 10 July 2014 09:43:09PM 2 points [-]

No-one has spoken up in favour of his activity

Are you serious, or is that some sort of hyperbole?

I am serious. By his activity, I mean specifically his mass downvoting activity. It is possible I have missed someone defending this action. Show me some examples, if there are any.

I have seen people opposing the ban. I have seen people querulously quibbling, "ah, but suppose I find everything a user posts bad and I downvote each of them, is that a bannable offense and if not how are you going to tell, eh?" But I have not yet see anyone saying, Eugine was right to downvote everything that these people posted, regardless of what it was, and everyone else should do the same until they are driven away.

Comment author: MugaSofer 16 July 2014 09:50:07AM *  2 points [-]

Ah, I see. There's defending it and then there's defending it.

Some people think it's a bad idea to mass-downvote, but not banworthy. Some people think it is/was sometimes a good idea to mass-downvote - that's what I was thinking of.

But you meant more along the lines of "Eugine was right to downvote everything that these people posted, regardless of what it was, and everyone else should do the same until they are driven away"?

You're right, I haven't seen anyone who claimed that.

Comment author: dunno 17 February 2014 10:16:39PM 0 points [-]

If suffering has far greater dis-utility for you than happy living has utility, is it logical to conclude that it'd be a good thing if the universe ceased to exist, thereby preventing all future suffering at the cost of all future life?

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 July 2014 09:53:36PM 0 points [-]

No. Not purely from that knowledge about your utility function, anyway.

Unless suffering has infinite disutility, then enough happiness would outweigh all the suffering in the world.

If we reach a Good Future, then it would be worth it even if the average modern human has negative utility - which seems far from obvious itself, even given the premise; most human lives could still experience sufficiently more happiness than suffering.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 July 2014 09:35:26PM 0 points [-]

So, um ... how do we assess the likelihood of causation, assuming we can't conduct an impromptu experiment on the spot?

Comment author: gwillen 07 July 2014 06:14:42PM 3 points [-]

Let me rephrase that as "treating them like they have a diminished capacity for agency, which is only appropriate if they actually do."

There's a cultural presumption, which I am neither intending to support nor to argue with here, that children fall into this category.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 July 2014 09:12:08PM 0 points [-]

There's a cultural presumption, which I am neither intending to support nor to argue with here, that children fall into this category.

Indeed. But more importantly, do adults fall into that category? That's what's being discussed here.

Comment author: Kyrorh 07 July 2014 02:57:03PM 3 points [-]

While both the child and the mother might have the same class of agency with respect to the object level decision, they have different classes of meta level agency, that is agency about their decision how they want to choose and what kind of person they want to be. While the child does not have that agency and therefore needs to be not only protected from false decisions but also raised to that meta level agency, the mother does and therefore the decision of the son to not tell her about being drunk interfere with that meta level agency, i.e. her right to take responsibility for her own life unless the son knows that she would want to be a rational person in which case his choice does not infringe on her agency.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 July 2014 09:10:02PM 0 points [-]

Hmm.

Does the average human, in all their heuristics and biases and irrationality, actually have enough "meta-level agency" at all times?

Comment author: polymathwannabe 07 July 2014 06:13:58PM 3 points [-]

They both know what their preferences are, but the child isn't fully equipped to choose better preferences.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 July 2014 09:08:21PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 February 2014 10:05:39PM 16 points [-]

I've asked someone trusted to try to write a program to detect mass-downvoting and even check particular individuals, but we haven't been able to find anything! It's possible that the database export we're getting from the server admins is incomplete? I don't know.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 July 2014 08:18:20PM *  2 points [-]

Huh. Now that someone has been caught very much doing this, did you find out why you couldn't detect it before?

Comment author: kokotajlod 09 July 2014 03:08:54AM *  0 points [-]

Thanks!

But if the UFAI can't parlay that takes out much of the fun, and much of the realism too.

Also, if Hard Mode has no FAI tech at all, then no one will research AI on Hard Mode and it will just devolve into a normal strategy game.

Edit: You know, this proposal could probably be easily implemented as a mod for an existing RTS or 4X game. For example, imagine a Civilization mod that added the "AI" tech that allowed you to build a "Boxed AI" structure in your cities. This quadruples the science and espionage production of your city, at the cost of a small chance of the entire city going rogue (the AI unboxing) every turn. This as you said creates a new faction with all the technologies researched and world domination as its goal... You can also research "Friendly AI" tech that allows you to build a "Friendly AI" which is just like a rogue AI faction except that it is permanently allied to you and will obey your commands and instantly grants you all the tech you want.

Comment author: MugaSofer 10 July 2014 08:14:44PM *  0 points [-]

But if the UFAI can't parlay that takes out much of the fun, and much of the realism too.

Hmm, that's a good point. I'm just worried that people might view an additional player as much less of a threat than a superintelligent AI.

Also, if Hard Mode has no FAI tech at all, then no one will research AI on Hard Mode and it will just devolve into a normal strategy game.

Hence the necessity of making tech tree advancement random, with player actions only providing modifiers.

View more: Next