You didn’t get downvoted for raising a dissenting voice: well-thought-out posts dissenting from the perceived SingInst party line on subjects perceived as on-topic, such as singularitarianism or cryonics, can and do get heavily upvoted. You got downvoted for pushing a fringe opinion on a highly politicized topic, in a forum where it’s perceived as inappropriate to do so, and now you’re getting downvoted for doing it again.
Politics makes people stupid. Attempts to politicize LW are correctly interpreted as attacks on the site’s collective sanity, about half a step up from actual trolling. I’m not sure it’s possible to discuss “9/11 Truth” theories in a politically neutral manner, but for your posts to have even a chance of being well received you’ll probably need to exercise much greater caution than you’ve presented them with so far.
This. You are the person every online community has who brings up his own pet topic, even if it’s not even remotely related to the thread. That is the primary reason I downvoted. It’s nothing but obnoxious.
I’m pretty sure the “you” refers to my comment’s parent and that the “This.” refers to mine. It’d have made more sense in a non-threaded forum, granted.
I agree politics shouldn’t be discussed on LW, but I’m not the one who started the whole 911 thing. The first post on that topic was from Robin Hanson on OB, later EY made at least two postings on that topic on LW, and then it has sprung up sometimes in reference to conspiracy theories, etc… if it was possible to raise the topic in the first place it should also be allowed to present dissenting views.
It’s become something of a canonical example of a conspiracy theory. Eliezer would have been better served choosing something less topical, but I don’t think bringing it up in the context of an example fringe belief is politicized to anywhere near the same extent as bringing it up as a serious proposal would be, for the same reason it isn’t particularly controversial to say that, for example, President Obama is not regularly engaged in Satanic ritual abuse.
There’s an asymmetry there, but it’s one that you should expect when dealing with uncommon beliefs.
You didn’t get downvoted for raising a dissenting voice: well-thought-out posts dissenting from the perceived SingInst party line on subjects perceived as on-topic, such as singularitarianism or cryonics, can and do get heavily upvoted. You got downvoted for pushing a fringe opinion on a highly politicized topic, in a forum where it’s perceived as inappropriate to do so, and now you’re getting downvoted for doing it again.
Politics makes people stupid. Attempts to politicize LW are correctly interpreted as attacks on the site’s collective sanity, about half a step up from actual trolling. I’m not sure it’s possible to discuss “9/11 Truth” theories in a politically neutral manner, but for your posts to have even a chance of being well received you’ll probably need to exercise much greater caution than you’ve presented them with so far.
I’d recommend not trying.
This. You are the person every online community has who brings up his own pet topic, even if it’s not even remotely related to the thread. That is the primary reason I downvoted. It’s nothing but obnoxious.
(Is this a reply to the wrong comment?)
I’m pretty sure the “you” refers to my comment’s parent and that the “This.” refers to mine. It’d have made more sense in a non-threaded forum, granted.
Yes, sorry. I can see how that was confusing. Nornagest’s interpretation of my comment is correct.
I agree politics shouldn’t be discussed on LW, but I’m not the one who started the whole 911 thing. The first post on that topic was from Robin Hanson on OB, later EY made at least two postings on that topic on LW, and then it has sprung up sometimes in reference to conspiracy theories, etc… if it was possible to raise the topic in the first place it should also be allowed to present dissenting views.
It’s become something of a canonical example of a conspiracy theory. Eliezer would have been better served choosing something less topical, but I don’t think bringing it up in the context of an example fringe belief is politicized to anywhere near the same extent as bringing it up as a serious proposal would be, for the same reason it isn’t particularly controversial to say that, for example, President Obama is not regularly engaged in Satanic ritual abuse.
There’s an asymmetry there, but it’s one that you should expect when dealing with uncommon beliefs.