(If this also doesn’t count as “intellectual writing circles”, consider renaming your category, since I clearly do not understand what you mean, except inasmuch as it is “rationalist or rationalist-adjacent circles”.)
The Gelman post in question is importantly not about arguing for the linked post being bad/stupid, it was taking it fully as a given. I actually think that’s an importantly different dynamic because if you are in a context where you can actually presume with your audience that something is bad, then writing it in a title isn’t actually influencing the status landscape very much (though it’s tricky).
Similarly, I think on LessWrong writing a title which presumes the falsity of the existence of a christian god would in other contexts I think be a pretty bad thing to do, but on LessWrong be totally fine, for similar reasons.
Andrew Gelman: “Bring on the Stupid: When does it make sense to judge a person, a group, or an organization by its worst?” (Not quite as clearcut, since it doesn’t name the person in the title, but still)
(If this also doesn’t count as “intellectual writing circles”, consider renaming your category, since I clearly do not understand what you mean, except inasmuch as it is “rationalist or rationalist-adjacent circles”.)
I certainly consider Gelman a valid example of the category :)
The Gelman post in question is importantly not about arguing for the linked post being bad/stupid, it was taking it fully as a given. I actually think that’s an importantly different dynamic because if you are in a context where you can actually presume with your audience that something is bad, then writing it in a title isn’t actually influencing the status landscape very much (though it’s tricky).
Similarly, I think on LessWrong writing a title which presumes the falsity of the existence of a christian god would in other contexts I think be a pretty bad thing to do, but on LessWrong be totally fine, for similar reasons.