To put it another way: The person who’s refusing to give me their well-thought-out criticism is either a) unable because of costs/time constraints to look further and see that my claim they have nothing to fear is credible, or b) themselves jumping to unfounded conclusions based on less data than they have available to them.
If a), then fair play—this is nobody’s first priority except mine, and I don’t feel entitled to everyone’s opinions; it’s perfectly reasonable to have a policy of not spending a lot of time if your first impression is strongly negative.
If b), and they have time to look but are choosing not to and running with a strawman without questioning their own conclusions, then … well … it probably wouldn’t have gone well anyway.
If c), they’ve followed the whole chain in chronological order and they still think I’m at fault, then that just means we have strongly differing priors on right and wrong/acceptable and unacceptable, and once you get down to values on that level, I don’t know how well we’d be able to pass one another’s ITTs anyway.
handoflixue’s earlier comments were absolutely dripping with assumption-of-evil-intent, outright insults, unfounded leaps to harsh judgments of my fundamental character, poor logic, fallacious smears, and so on and so forth. They dropped into the thread after there were already over a hundred comments, including many where I’d demonstrated credible evidence of good faith and willingness to change my mind, which they completely ignored. They continued to ask loaded, unfair questions and set up strawmans over and over and over, with at least a dozen posts containing both deontological hostility and bad epistemics. They then offered a single apology conditional on an “if” (rather than just saying, sorry, I was too harsh, as I myself have done in these comments at least twice), and dropped the overtly hostile tone while continuing to subtly insinuate that I’m a bad actor in every post.
If somebody thinks that’s okay, or thinks that I shouldn’t have defended myself, then that’s somebody whose moral framework is, in my personal opinion, drastically askew. There’s a different question about whether I’ve marginally erred, e.g. by being 15% too defensive, but that shouldn’t trigger someone who’s not going to be hostile in the first place to be afraid.
handoflixue’s earlier comments were absolutely dripping with assumption-of-evil-intent, outright insults, unfounded leaps to harsh judgments of my fundamental character, poor logic, fallacious smears, and so on and so forth. They dropped into the thread after there were already over a hundred comments, including many where I’d demonstrated credible evidence of good faith and willingness to change my mind, which they completely ignored. They continued to ask loaded, unfair questions and set up strawmans over and over and over, with at least a dozen posts containing both deontological hostility and bad epistemics.
To put it another way: The person who’s refusing to give me their well-thought-out criticism is either a) unable because of costs/time constraints to look further and see that my claim they have nothing to fear is credible, or b) themselves jumping to unfounded conclusions based on less data than they have available to them.
If a), then fair play—this is nobody’s first priority except mine, and I don’t feel entitled to everyone’s opinions; it’s perfectly reasonable to have a policy of not spending a lot of time if your first impression is strongly negative.
If b), and they have time to look but are choosing not to and running with a strawman without questioning their own conclusions, then … well … it probably wouldn’t have gone well anyway.
If c), they’ve followed the whole chain in chronological order and they still think I’m at fault, then that just means we have strongly differing priors on right and wrong/acceptable and unacceptable, and once you get down to values on that level, I don’t know how well we’d be able to pass one another’s ITTs anyway.
handoflixue’s earlier comments were absolutely dripping with assumption-of-evil-intent, outright insults, unfounded leaps to harsh judgments of my fundamental character, poor logic, fallacious smears, and so on and so forth. They dropped into the thread after there were already over a hundred comments, including many where I’d demonstrated credible evidence of good faith and willingness to change my mind, which they completely ignored. They continued to ask loaded, unfair questions and set up strawmans over and over and over, with at least a dozen posts containing both deontological hostility and bad epistemics. They then offered a single apology conditional on an “if” (rather than just saying, sorry, I was too harsh, as I myself have done in these comments at least twice), and dropped the overtly hostile tone while continuing to subtly insinuate that I’m a bad actor in every post.
If somebody thinks that’s okay, or thinks that I shouldn’t have defended myself, then that’s somebody whose moral framework is, in my personal opinion, drastically askew. There’s a different question about whether I’ve marginally erred, e.g. by being 15% too defensive, but that shouldn’t trigger someone who’s not going to be hostile in the first place to be afraid.
Just pondering this passage. Interesting.