= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
controversy -> lots of comments
Yup, but the arrow pointing the other way (the one NancyLebovitz asked about) is likely waaay thinner and noisier than that.
No need to snark! That's probably true, but also it's mitigated by the fact that the great-grandfather is a prediction rather than an after-the-fact interpretation. In any case, I'm just translating, not making my own assertion.
Given lack of evidence one has to make a judgment based on priors. It is certainly not the case that we should have some sort of higher standard of evidence for one side of this debate because of, for example, the convenience it would afford for tangential but related arguments.
The comment objected to suggested looking for data rather than picking an answer and arguing for it without looking for data.
Avoiding the environment in question is fine. Would you work to disrupt it's formation or use?
Are you saying you would prefer that insults, nagging, implicit normative claims, misleading innuendos, and outright falsehoods presented as statements about someone's perceptions of reality be accepted in the environment in question (specifically, lesswrong)?
Presumably you consider every more-or-less-polite forum on sex/gender issues to be mind-killed too, then? The fact that people tend to get incensed about, strongly condemn and downvote things that they deem to be politically extremist/misanthropic/misogynistic... is it really the standard by which to judge mind-killedness? Or should we rather look at the quality of empirical and moral arguments used in the discussion, without showing undue tolerance to attacks on the Enlightenment values that LW's mission implicitly includes?
Would you show the same tolerance to overt racism and political extremism in a thread on group differences in intelligence? In my opinion, LW handles that controversy admirably, and has never let the moral issues inherent in it out of the discussion.
But if there weren't politically extremist / misanthropic / misogynistic (mind-killed) posts, the discussion wouldn't be very long!
(Or at least that's how I'm reading the grandparent.)
"Feminism" in its colloquial understanding covers so much beliefs and memes at this point that it's possible to consider some of them trivial (e.g. "the traditional gender structure is unjust, immoral and insidious") while trivially dismissing others (e.g. "most men are currently privileged over most women", "male sexuality is inherently aggressive/antisocial").
Okay, fair enough. Personally, I would say that, yeah, men do have gender-related "privilege", that this is trivial once it's pointed out, and that it's basically part of why "the traditional gender structure is unjust, immoral and insidious". So there you go.
In response to
[META] Retributive downvoting: Why?
I think it could certainly be wise to implement a limit on the rate at which one can downvote posts by a specific user, or, if that's technically difficult to implement, the rate at which one can downvote fullstop.
The more involved measures you suggest would require effort, but I suppose the question becomes: what is LessWrong for? If it's actively for improving rationality, such measures could be worthwhile, assuming we could find or reroute some moderators / mentors / monitors.
Okay then. I'm submitting a bug report, requesting that the karma system be updated to prevent mass-downvoting. Ideally, if a single user downvotes multiple comments or articles by a specific other user within a short timespan, and the downvoted posts are spread across multiple articles, then some sort of flag should be raised to review the downvoter's actions.
Is there a sort of meta-lesswrong discussion where we can discuss stuff like this? I feel like it's something of a derail of the current topic.
Hm. Perhaps make a post in Discussion? This seems like a pretty good idea :)
If the context is that you (or others) are telling me that it wasn't the thief's fault that they stole my TV
The whole point is that this is a strawman.
(Not sure what the point of the rest is - clarification please?)
The whole point is that this is a strawman.
It's not. Maybe you're lucky enough to have never encountered it.
That confusion exists strongly within the social landscape; perhaps what is needed is a more rigorous distinction between "views that have to be constantly defended against" and "facts which happen to be true", whenever the two happen to be bound together by some form of social assumption.
The problem is "well, I don't think that way" has turned into a poor signaling mechanism, so stronger (and more expensive) signals need to be developed.
EDIT: In the past 5 minutes, every post and comment I have ever made on this site has been downvoted, including ones made weeks ago, and including posts and comments which have nothing to do with this topic.
Can we please try to have a discussion, rather than engage in petty anonymous retribution?
Similar thing happened to me earlier today after a post on this same topic. C'mon lesswrong.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I think most people were assuming you don't know the rapist in this case.
Not a very sturdy assumption. That's true in a minority of cases.