I disagree that the summary is ad hominem—I think it is a concrete description of my highest-probability model explanation of cousin_it.
Buzzword compliance aside, this is precisely what ad hominem is: “a … description of … ”. The subject is your proposal for a commune—not your beliefs about cousin_it.
I don’t interpret good faith as trying to help me. I do interpret it as trying to help us, where I define “us” as “all of the people on LW and in the rationalist community” specifically, and more broadly as “all humans.”
That sounds to me like pious crap. I don’t see you as different from the 99.9+% of people who are not qualified to judge who is trying to help “all humans” and who is not—and that’s even besides the oft-made observation that road to hell is never in need of repair.
Let me remind you again—we are discussing your proposal for a commune, not whose intentions are pure.
As I said, you are free to cooperate or not, but focusing on what you see as personal shortcomings of people who disagree with you seems like a road that leads to bad places. Especially given that you put forward yourself as the Dear Leader of this potential commune.
Right. The problem is, only some of us are actually discussing.
In point of fact, most of us are actually discussing, but threeish people have just dropped in to lecture with no even hypothetical willingness to change their minds (or at least none credibly demonstrated, as I claim I’ve credibly demonstrated mine).
EDIT: Also, on reflection, I still think you’re either misusing the term ad hominem or mischaracterizing the critique I’m making of cousin_it. I’m not trying to make claims about them as a whole person (e.g. they’re bad in general or they lack the ability to engage in good faith in general), which is I think what is required for it to be ad hominem—I have to be making some fundamental attribution, and I’m not. I’m saying that the words they’ve typed in this thread are inconsistent with someone acting in good faith, which is a claim about observations and causality, and not about character.
I assume you have noted, because you’re perceptive, but just to say here—I have repeatedly expressed credible gratitude for the presence of countervailing models and criticisms and so forth, and done at least some significant updating in plain sight. I don’t think it would be fair for people to round me off to “was looking for a hive mind.”
The point here is merely to what degree LW is special and what can you expect from it. I neither said nor implied that you went looking for a hive mind.
Yeah, I want to similarly underscore/perhaps redundantly state that you have demonstrated extremely high and consistent credibility when it comes to productively engaging in discourse. With the comment above, I was underscoring a thing that plausibly could’ve just gone unstated.
Buzzword compliance aside, this is precisely what ad hominem is: “a … description of … ”. The subject is your proposal for a commune—not your beliefs about cousin_it.
That sounds to me like pious crap. I don’t see you as different from the 99.9+% of people who are not qualified to judge who is trying to help “all humans” and who is not—and that’s even besides the oft-made observation that road to hell is never in need of repair.
Let me remind you again—we are discussing your proposal for a commune, not whose intentions are pure.
As I said, you are free to cooperate or not, but focusing on what you see as personal shortcomings of people who disagree with you seems like a road that leads to bad places. Especially given that you put forward yourself as the Dear Leader of this potential commune.
Right. The problem is, only some of us are actually discussing.
In point of fact, most of us are actually discussing, but threeish people have just dropped in to lecture with no even hypothetical willingness to change their minds (or at least none credibly demonstrated, as I claim I’ve credibly demonstrated mine).
EDIT: Also, on reflection, I still think you’re either misusing the term ad hominem or mischaracterizing the critique I’m making of cousin_it. I’m not trying to make claims about them as a whole person (e.g. they’re bad in general or they lack the ability to engage in good faith in general), which is I think what is required for it to be ad hominem—I have to be making some fundamental attribution, and I’m not. I’m saying that the words they’ve typed in this thread are inconsistent with someone acting in good faith, which is a claim about observations and causality, and not about character.
You have unreasonable expectations for an internet discussion :-P
I thought Less Wrong was special. I actually did.
It is. Imagine what would happen if you were to put your proposal onto, say, Reddit. However LW, thankfully, is not a hive mind.
I assume you have noted, because you’re perceptive, but just to say here—I have repeatedly expressed credible gratitude for the presence of countervailing models and criticisms and so forth, and done at least some significant updating in plain sight. I don’t think it would be fair for people to round me off to “was looking for a hive mind.”
The point here is merely to what degree LW is special and what can you expect from it. I neither said nor implied that you went looking for a hive mind.
Yeah, I want to similarly underscore/perhaps redundantly state that you have demonstrated extremely high and consistent credibility when it comes to productively engaging in discourse. With the comment above, I was underscoring a thing that plausibly could’ve just gone unstated.