I think a more generic react/emoji like that could be a good addition for cases where none of the existing emoji fit, and for people who don’t want to be specific about why they are not responding further, for whatever reason. Thanks for working on that.
I don’t think “Not worth getting into” is impolite in any way. Replying to a comment consumes time, and it will frequently be the case that someone’s time is better spent on other activities. Since there is no obligation on the author to respond (per habryka’s post), they can’t be considered impolite for not responding further.
I don’t think “Not worth getting into” is impolite in any way.
I believe you are outright incorrect about how many people will receive this, then! Many people will, in fact, receive that statement as hostile, which will lead to it being underused by people who are concerned with politeness, which will lead to it correctly being perceived as statistically rude.
I intend to say that “Not worth getting into” is not rude on LessWrong, as a normative statement, rather than a descriptive statement about what LW readers will think. Partly it is a normative statement about what (I think) LW culture is, and partly it is a normative statement about what (I think) LW culture should be.
Arguments for what LW culture is
When an activity gives an explicit affordance for something, using it is not rude by default. Destroying someone’s base is rude in a game of Legos, but not rude in a game of Starcraft. Since LW has a “Not worth getting into?” react, using it is not rude by default. If the LW react changed to “Not worth getting into”, that would also be not rude by default. The reacts are therefore a surprising tool for shaping LW culture.
Also, as I mentioned above, there is no obligation on the author to respond, per habryka’s post. Any response, even a react, is supererogatory. By reacting the author has given the commenter (and other readers) strictly more information than they are obliged to, at no cost. It is a free gift. Since we don’t believe in Copenhagen Ethics we can’t fault an author for not doing more just because they did something instead of nothing.
In those communities saying anything bad about another community member is frowned upon.
It’s not even bad that someone should occasionally say something that is not worth responding to. Threads have to end at some point. There are many things that are worth saying but are not worth responding to. If a culture is at the point where pointing out a not-even-bad thing about a single comment is considered impolite and/or hostile, that culture is deep into The LinkedIn Attractor, and doomed as a rationalist endeavor.
Also, I go back to my problem statement above. It’s valuable for authors to have easy ways to gracefully indicate why they are not responding. LW culture should support authors in choosing how much time to spend responding to comments. Failure to do so results in fewer authors, and greater use of moderation tools to block comments as a preventive. It also results in fewer comments by people respectful of the time of authors, without discouraging comments by people who are not so respectful (eg, allegedly, Said). This is bad.
On statistical rudeness
Frequent users of “Bowing out of this thread” reacts and “Not worth getting into” reacts will be slightly different, statistically. That doesn’t make the reacts polite or rude. By analogy, people who wear cowboy hats are statistically different to those who wear bowler hats, but that doesn’t make the hats polite or rude.
Is this worth getting into?
This comment was worth it for me because it’s potentially upstream of LW features & culture, and LW potentially has an impact on the risk of extinction. If you don’t think it’s worth getting into further I will not consider this impolite, rude, or hostile.
I think a more generic react/emoji like that could be a good addition for cases where none of the existing emoji fit, and for people who don’t want to be specific about why they are not responding further, for whatever reason. Thanks for working on that.
I don’t think “Not worth getting into” is impolite in any way. Replying to a comment consumes time, and it will frequently be the case that someone’s time is better spent on other activities. Since there is no obligation on the author to respond (per habryka’s post), they can’t be considered impolite for not responding further.
I believe you are outright incorrect about how many people will receive this, then! Many people will, in fact, receive that statement as hostile, which will lead to it being underused by people who are concerned with politeness, which will lead to it correctly being perceived as statistically rude.
I intend to say that “Not worth getting into” is not rude on LessWrong, as a normative statement, rather than a descriptive statement about what LW readers will think. Partly it is a normative statement about what (I think) LW culture is, and partly it is a normative statement about what (I think) LW culture should be.
Arguments for what LW culture is
When an activity gives an explicit affordance for something, using it is not rude by default. Destroying someone’s base is rude in a game of Legos, but not rude in a game of Starcraft. Since LW has a “Not worth getting into?” react, using it is not rude by default. If the LW react changed to “Not worth getting into”, that would also be not rude by default. The reacts are therefore a surprising tool for shaping LW culture.
Also, as I mentioned above, there is no obligation on the author to respond, per habryka’s post. Any response, even a react, is supererogatory. By reacting the author has given the commenter (and other readers) strictly more information than they are obliged to, at no cost. It is a free gift. Since we don’t believe in Copenhagen Ethics we can’t fault an author for not doing more just because they did something instead of nothing.
Arguments for what LW culture should be
This is partly covered by The LinkedIn attractor in habryka’s post:
It’s not even bad that someone should occasionally say something that is not worth responding to. Threads have to end at some point. There are many things that are worth saying but are not worth responding to. If a culture is at the point where pointing out a not-even-bad thing about a single comment is considered impolite and/or hostile, that culture is deep into The LinkedIn Attractor, and doomed as a rationalist endeavor.
Also, I go back to my problem statement above. It’s valuable for authors to have easy ways to gracefully indicate why they are not responding. LW culture should support authors in choosing how much time to spend responding to comments. Failure to do so results in fewer authors, and greater use of moderation tools to block comments as a preventive. It also results in fewer comments by people respectful of the time of authors, without discouraging comments by people who are not so respectful (eg, allegedly, Said). This is bad.
On statistical rudeness
Frequent users of “Bowing out of this thread” reacts and “Not worth getting into” reacts will be slightly different, statistically. That doesn’t make the reacts polite or rude. By analogy, people who wear cowboy hats are statistically different to those who wear bowler hats, but that doesn’t make the hats polite or rude.
Is this worth getting into?
This comment was worth it for me because it’s potentially upstream of LW features & culture, and LW potentially has an impact on the risk of extinction. If you don’t think it’s worth getting into further I will not consider this impolite, rude, or hostile.