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

Comment author: Alicorn 01 April 2016 03:42:34AM 2 points [-]

Didn't there use to be a formatting stripping button?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 01 April 2016 03:53:51AM *  2 points [-]

Doh! I forgot about that. 'Coz it is indicated by an eraser icon.

When I use it, it looks like it isn't working--it resizes everything to a tiny font, and converts all quotes to indents. Inspecting the HTML, it looks like it's done the right thing. I'll have to test it some to decide whether I trust it.

Fixing that tool to not change what's displayed so much would be perfect.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 01 April 2016 02:16:43AM *  -1 points [-]

I really wish the LW editor would strip font specifications out of the HTML when I do a paste into its editor while creating a new post. It's a pain in the ass to have to go thru the raw HTML by hand and strip out all the font specifications. I have never yet wanted to copy the fonts from quotes and links that I've copy-pasted.

Comment author: Clarity 01 April 2016 12:56:50AM 1 point [-]

Have less big font quotes. Unless, like I sometimes do, you're intentionally trying to filter out people from your audience without the patience to search for meaning in discordant font sizes in order to maximise the quality of your responses.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 01 April 2016 02:15:06AM *  1 point [-]

I don't see any big font quotes. You must have different fonts.

I really wish the LW editor would strip font specifications out of the HTML when I do a paste into its editor. It's a huge pain in the ass to remove them from the HTML by hand.

I used vim to remove the remaining font specifications just now.

Comment author: Clarity 31 March 2016 02:27:25AM *  3 points [-]

I don't usually upvote top-level discussion posts but I'll lend you one upvote until you break even.

This is an important topic of discussion. I reckon your downvotes are because of your subpar formatting.

Based on my experiences as a marginalized person, being rational just means going easy on my oppressors.

shudders

Comment author: PhilGoetz 31 March 2016 09:14:15PM 2 points [-]

How else would you format it?

Comment author: Will_BC 30 March 2016 02:25:25PM 6 points [-]

Perhaps that connotation is because of the group in question? I dislike playing word games, the words we use should be interchangeable if they refer to the exact same thing. It's kind of like how we went from Negroes to Black to African Americans in an attempt to combat racism, but the racism was the problem, not bad words, and it only gets confusing when you word police. I was talking to some social justice types before the term was used in a derogatory way online and they described themselves that way, and the first place I saw it online was as a self-description of those groups. Words get loaded with bad affect because people have negative thoughts about the thing being referred to. I think any decision to use a new word that predates changing the thing to which we are referring is premature.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 30 March 2016 03:11:35PM 4 points [-]

Someone told me yesterday that airline stewards don't want to be called stewards anymore; they want to be called, I think, flight attendants. The funny thing is that "steward" used to mean a very high-ranking individual, the person who ran a great lord's estate. The airline industry used it for their stewardesses to artificially inflate their status. Over time, the role, at least in the opinion of flight attendants, degraded the word, until they didn't want it anymore.

Comment author: Alia1d 29 March 2016 11:00:59PM 3 points [-]

You are right that there is commonly an implicate argument for action on someone else’s part that is irrational. There was originally an argument from Mainline Protestantism* that somewhat bridged the gap from. But most SJWs don’t want the rest of the baggage from Christianity and so don’t want to examine that foundation. But SJWs do commonly carry forward as assumptions ideas like “true” desires aren’t going to be contradictory and therefor don’t need to be put in a hierarchy:

This is not to say that there are many roles [sic] to be filled among those who resist, none of which should be placed in a hierarchy of value. People come from different places of knowledge, ability, and history which makes each person equipped to participate (if they so choose) based on their unique position in society.

In the meantime, the main audience that SJWs are talking to has the cultural value (inherited from Christianity) that we want to increase people’s happiness. So saying you want something, and therefore it would make you happy, is at least some small amount of weight in favor of that thing.

*(God loves all humans greatly and as imitators of Christ we should love all humans too. Also Christ has redeemed people from their sins and therefore they are going to be (and already are in some non-manifest way) made perfect. Since they are made perfect, their deepest and truest desires will partake of the Good. The Good is non-self-contradictory and innately desirable. Therefore these “true” desires, which are in the process of being brought out in them by the grace of God, should be catered to.)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 30 March 2016 02:59:49PM 0 points [-]

There is a simpler and stronger argument to that end from evolution.

Comment author: gwillen 30 March 2016 06:41:14AM *  6 points [-]

I would just like to note / point out that "SJW" is not a particularly neutral way to refer to the group of people in question -- it smuggles in (at least for some readers, and I suspect for most) a distinctly negative connotation about the group described.

Obviously if that's your intention, then by all means use the language you prefer; but if some of the commenters didn't mean it that way, and are just trying neutrally discuss a movement, I'd encourage picking a different term for it. (I normally say "the social justice movement".)

I will borrow from Error's very apt disclaimer in another comment, and note that my feelings toward the movement in question are more or less neutral -- "an affect borne of opinions that cancel out rather than a simple lack of same."

Comment author: PhilGoetz 30 March 2016 02:56:19PM *  1 point [-]

How about SJM? I want a noun, not a long noun phrase.

Why did the description change from "civil rights" to "social justice"?

Comment author: Jacobian 29 March 2016 05:40:56PM *  2 points [-]

LW automatically downvotes...

I would love to hear the evidence you have to back that very broadstatement. It sounds like you're against doing this yourself, and so am I, and so is Phil. That's 0/3 so far here.

I upvoted Phil's post about word per person and rigor because it was an interesting and novel idea backed by actual research and analysis (whether I agree with it or not). I downvoted this post because it's a trite idea backed by no analysis other than taking word definitions out of context.

If you really feel that LW is now entirely populated by people who wage petty wars over tribal grievances (like 90% of the rest of the internet), then what are you still doing here?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2016 06:30:39PM *  1 point [-]

Presenting proof that denouncing reason is acceptable within the social justice community isn't an "idea". It's data. That in itself is worth a post.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 March 2016 04:55:14PM 3 points [-]

Getting five downvotes on this immediately after posting is bizarre

You are surprised? LW automatically downvotes polarizing/uncomfortable content and that goes double for anything that mentions SJWs.

Or, to be a bit more precise, you are allowed here to make people uncomfortable with the scenario of a giant paperclip chasing them. But you are not allowed to make people uncomfortable about their tribal allegiances.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2016 05:06:09PM *  3 points [-]

I don't think LW is a hotbed of SJW activity. I could be wrong.

Comment author: 27chaos 23 March 2016 07:07:25PM 0 points [-]

I feel like general stupidity does exist, in the same way that general intelligence does? Not sure what you like about this quote. The idea that biases are diverse, maybe?

Comment author: PhilGoetz 29 March 2016 04:37:47PM 5 points [-]

General stupidity exists, but effective stupidity occurs regularly in very intelligent people. It's easy and feels good to dismiss people who disagree with you, and are wrong, as stupid. This is sometimes true, but it closes off the possibility of uncovering biases and other problems and correcting them.

View more: Next