This blog is very annoying. First, for some reason you guys keep writing posts and deleting them or something; I got several RSS notifications for posts that subsequently didn’t exist. Second, no comments means no opportunity to give feedback, even of the writing variety. For example, I don’t understand the Parable of the Unstoppable Mad Man. The author writes like it’s obvious what the mad man is, but I’m genuinely confused. (The typo in the third sentence didn’t help either.) And what’s the deal with the prisoner? I don’t get this post at all.
Do you guys really think writing with no feedback is a good idea? (Requiring emails for comments is a deadly trivial inconvenience. You’ll end up only getting feedback from the loudest people, which doesn’t seem to correlate at all with the most useful feedback.)
First, for some reason you guys keep writing posts and deleting them or something; I got several RSS notifications for posts that subsequently didn’t exist.
My apologies for the inconvenience and the tardy reply. One of the disappearing articles was my Parable of the Unstoppable Mad Man which I accidentally published out of order in the sequence, before Against Moral Progress. I have since reposted it.
The other four missing posts where those written by James Goulding. He decided to start his own blog and asked me if it would be ok to move his posts there, I said it would be. Looking back I now think this was a mistake on my part. You can read the articles with very minor changes there:
His site is interesting and well worth following in general. I will likely soon make an interesting links post where we will among other things share these with an explanation for why they aren’t on the site anymore.
Having more experience with the interface future mistakes are now less likely. More importantly, because of readers feedback, I’ve decided that from now on I generally won’t let people pull their old articles. Authors are still free to repost them wherever they want. I hope this addresses some of your complaints.
Second, no comments means no opportunity to give feedback, even of the writing variety.
I’ve actually received a lot of feedback on that piece both in email and on twitter.
(The typo in the third sentence didn’t help either.)
Well if it didn’t have embarrassing typos how would anyone know it was written by me? ;) I’ve actually had cowriters scold me on several errors in that piece and I would have corrected it earlier this week but I’ve been working with very limited computer access in the past three months. Trying to edit articles in wordpress on my smartphone is a nightmare so I put it off until today when I finally got a home computer again and more importantly installed a spellchecker.
Do you guys really think writing with no feedback is a good idea? (Requiring emails for comments is a deadly trivial inconvenience. You’ll end up only getting feedback from the loudest people, which doesn’t seem to correlate at all with the most useful feedback.)
There are the open threads. But this is a policy we may change in the future, I’m particularly interested in how James’ new approach will work out in the following weeks. What do you think of it?
For example, I don’t understand the Parable of the Unstoppable Mad Man. The author writes like it’s obvious what the mad man is, but I’m genuinely confused.
The “mad man” is progressivism, demolishing the wall of the prison cell is something like “fighting for same-sex marriage” or “fighting against slavery” (or any other progressive cause that some random reactionary may be incidentally supporting) -- but if reactionaries help progressives in that one goal, then the progressives will move all the faster to some other more destructive cause that will have to be opposed.
I don’t understand the Parable of the Unstoppable Mad Man. The author writes like it’s obvious what the mad man is, but I’m genuinely confused. And what’s the deal with the prisoner? I don’t get this post at all.
Did you miss it was the sequel to the post Against Moral Progress? If this is the case I should perhaps make sequences more explicit. But to clarify the post:
I will begin in shallow waters, examining why you might want to hinder primordial terrors even when they seem to be doing something good.
Who in particular the unstoppable mad man doesn’t matter much for the message of the article which was aimed at meta not object level. I did some very light edits and would appreciate your input on if it makes this clearer.
They are obviously not interested in providing a forum for unbiased discussions of their ideas. They just want a soapbox for them, nothing more. Which is fine, lots of groups do that. But this should not be confused with rational thought in any way, given how their motivated cognition runs rampant.
If they cared for some semblance of rational discourse, they would have invited a thoughtful charitable critique of their ideas, such as the one from Slate Star Codex, and then discussed it in a thoughtful charitable way. Maybe they will, eventually, who knows, but the chances are slim.
As it stands now, the blog has a long way to go to raise its level of discourse to that of, say, Salon or Fox News.
This blog is very annoying. First, for some reason you guys keep writing posts and deleting them or something; I got several RSS notifications for posts that subsequently didn’t exist. Second, no comments means no opportunity to give feedback, even of the writing variety. For example, I don’t understand the Parable of the Unstoppable Mad Man. The author writes like it’s obvious what the mad man is, but I’m genuinely confused. (The typo in the third sentence didn’t help either.) And what’s the deal with the prisoner? I don’t get this post at all.
Do you guys really think writing with no feedback is a good idea? (Requiring emails for comments is a deadly trivial inconvenience. You’ll end up only getting feedback from the loudest people, which doesn’t seem to correlate at all with the most useful feedback.)
My apologies for the inconvenience and the tardy reply. One of the disappearing articles was my Parable of the Unstoppable Mad Man which I accidentally published out of order in the sequence, before Against Moral Progress. I have since reposted it.
The other four missing posts where those written by James Goulding. He decided to start his own blog and asked me if it would be ok to move his posts there, I said it would be. Looking back I now think this was a mistake on my part. You can read the articles with very minor changes there:
An artist’s perspective on democracy (formerly titled Democracy And Wet Panties)
Is “tribalism” a useful concept?
Reply to Annissimov on government
Propaganda
His site is interesting and well worth following in general. I will likely soon make an interesting links post where we will among other things share these with an explanation for why they aren’t on the site anymore.
Having more experience with the interface future mistakes are now less likely. More importantly, because of readers feedback, I’ve decided that from now on I generally won’t let people pull their old articles. Authors are still free to repost them wherever they want. I hope this addresses some of your complaints.
I’ve actually received a lot of feedback on that piece both in email and on twitter.
Well if it didn’t have embarrassing typos how would anyone know it was written by me? ;) I’ve actually had cowriters scold me on several errors in that piece and I would have corrected it earlier this week but I’ve been working with very limited computer access in the past three months. Trying to edit articles in wordpress on my smartphone is a nightmare so I put it off until today when I finally got a home computer again and more importantly installed a spellchecker.
There are the open threads. But this is a policy we may change in the future, I’m particularly interested in how James’ new approach will work out in the following weeks. What do you think of it?
James hasn’t had much success with it by the looks of it, (only one person got through last I checked) but I certainly like the idea.
On the other hand, curated email exchanges are neat too.
If no comments is acceptable, some comments is better, and free comments is unacceptable, one comment sounds like it might be pretty good.
Huh. This surprises me. Fair enough.
The “mad man” is progressivism, demolishing the wall of the prison cell is something like “fighting for same-sex marriage” or “fighting against slavery” (or any other progressive cause that some random reactionary may be incidentally supporting) -- but if reactionaries help progressives in that one goal, then the progressives will move all the faster to some other more destructive cause that will have to be opposed.
Did you miss it was the sequel to the post Against Moral Progress? If this is the case I should perhaps make sequences more explicit. But to clarify the post:
Who in particular the unstoppable mad man doesn’t matter much for the message of the article which was aimed at meta not object level. I did some very light edits and would appreciate your input on if it makes this clearer.
To say the least.
They are obviously not interested in providing a forum for unbiased discussions of their ideas. They just want a soapbox for them, nothing more. Which is fine, lots of groups do that. But this should not be confused with rational thought in any way, given how their motivated cognition runs rampant.
If they cared for some semblance of rational discourse, they would have invited a thoughtful charitable critique of their ideas, such as the one from Slate Star Codex, and then discussed it in a thoughtful charitable way. Maybe they will, eventually, who knows, but the chances are slim.
As it stands now, the blog has a long way to go to raise its level of discourse to that of, say, Salon or Fox News.