I don’t believe there were explosives planted in the World Trade Center. I don’t believe in haunted houses. I don’t believe in perpetual motion machines. I believe that all these beliefs are not only wrong but visibly insane.
My 9/11 survey was also downvoted. I’m fine with people having their opinion on 9/11 but why would you prevent others from collecting objective data?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/8ac/911_survey/
I think LW has a great difficulty in allowing dissenting voices.
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.
Elizer probably shouldn’t have brought up 9/11 in the first place (it is a mindkiller even more than normal politics). Politics in general, and 9/11 in particular, are off topic for this site. You will note that LW did not shut down to protest SOPA, even though a large number of members oppose the legislation.
What should SI/LW do about this? I think there should be some rules as to when downvoting is allowed. Alternatively I would suggest that there is some betting market, every time you down/upvote something you are making a bet on your karma, so if it later somehow turns out that your bet was “wrong” you will lose karma, but I’m not sure how it would be possible to implement this.
Disallowing rude language, like calling people insane or implying it, etc...(this should be a given but it doesn’t seem to be the case here), unless it is agreed upon(Crocker’s rules).
Given the reception you get here, time and again, consider looking for a more suitable forum for your fringe ideas. Otherwise you will keep finding yourself in this situation.
Alternatively I would suggest that there is some betting market, every time you down/upvote something you are making a bet on your karma, so if it later somehow turns out that your bet was “wrong” you will lose karma, but I’m not sure how it would be possible to implement this.
This is a very interesting statement given that I and others have repeatedly suggested that to get people to listen to you about 9/11 issues you could use Intrade, PredictionBook, Longbets or make a specific bet with someone here.(Example discussion one, example discussion two).
So apparently you want to make other people risk resources but not yourself. Do you see why this sort of attitude is going to prompt downvotes? (And of course, I’m still willing to make a monetary bet along the lines discussed earlier.)
It is just as rude of you to continue to bring up a topic that we have told you time and time again we have made up our minds on and do not wish to consider any further.
I typically am quick to downvote if I see rudeness, but I will always make an exception when it is responding to you bringing up the same topic again with no new information or evidence.
(Note: This is not a request for more “evidence”. I have no interest in whether or not the US government is responsible for 9/11. It is not a helpful use of my time to consider that question as I have nothing to gain from changing my mind, if that were even possible.)
You asked for it so I will raise this topic yet again, I hope not to get downvoted:
In http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/
EY wrote:
I presented evidence to the contrary of that claim only to be downvoted: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/1r5v
I asked EY to explain why he thinks so only to be downvoted: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ww/undiscriminating_skepticism/1t7r
My 9/11 survey was also downvoted. I’m fine with people having their opinion on 9/11 but why would you prevent others from collecting objective data? http://lesswrong.com/lw/8ac/911_survey/
I think LW has a great difficulty in allowing dissenting voices.
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.
Downvoted for beating the dead horse and straying off topic.
Elizer probably shouldn’t have brought up 9/11 in the first place (it is a mindkiller even more than normal politics). Politics in general, and 9/11 in particular, are off topic for this site. You will note that LW did not shut down to protest SOPA, even though a large number of members oppose the legislation.
What should SI/LW do about this? I think there should be some rules as to when downvoting is allowed. Alternatively I would suggest that there is some betting market, every time you down/upvote something you are making a bet on your karma, so if it later somehow turns out that your bet was “wrong” you will lose karma, but I’m not sure how it would be possible to implement this.
Disallowing rude language, like calling people insane or implying it, etc...(this should be a given but it doesn’t seem to be the case here), unless it is agreed upon(Crocker’s rules).
Given the reception you get here, time and again, consider looking for a more suitable forum for your fringe ideas. Otherwise you will keep finding yourself in this situation.
This is a very interesting statement given that I and others have repeatedly suggested that to get people to listen to you about 9/11 issues you could use Intrade, PredictionBook, Longbets or make a specific bet with someone here.(Example discussion one, example discussion two).
So apparently you want to make other people risk resources but not yourself. Do you see why this sort of attitude is going to prompt downvotes? (And of course, I’m still willing to make a monetary bet along the lines discussed earlier.)
It is just as rude of you to continue to bring up a topic that we have told you time and time again we have made up our minds on and do not wish to consider any further.
I typically am quick to downvote if I see rudeness, but I will always make an exception when it is responding to you bringing up the same topic again with no new information or evidence.
(Note: This is not a request for more “evidence”. I have no interest in whether or not the US government is responsible for 9/11. It is not a helpful use of my time to consider that question as I have nothing to gain from changing my mind, if that were even possible.)
comment deleted.