I disagree. It’s an honest expression of feeling, and a reasonable statement of expectations, given LW’s other run-ins with self-identified theists. It may be a bit overstated, but not terribly much.
Do you really think it’s only a bit overstated? I mean, has anybody been banned for being religious? And has anybody here indicated that they hate Christians without immediately being called on falling into blue vs. green thinking?
Okay, ready to be shouted down. I’ll be counting the downvotes as they roll in, I guess. You guys really hate Christians, after all. (Am I actually allowed to be here or am I banned for my religion?) I’ll probably just leave soon anyway. Nothing good can come of this. I don’t know why I’m doing this. I shouldn’t be here; you don’t want me here, not to mention I probably shouldn’t bother talking to people who only want me to hate God. Why am I even here again? Seriously, why am I not just lurking? That would make more sense.
From her other posts, AspiringKnitter strikes me as being open-minded and quite intelligent, but that last paragraph really irks me. It’s self-debasing in an almost manipulative way—as if she actually wants us to talk to her like we “only want [her] to hate God” or as if we “really hate Christians”. Anybody who has spent any non-trivial amount of time on LW would know that we certainly don’t hate people we disagree with, at least to the best of my knowledge, so asserting that is not a charitable or reasonable expectation. Plus, it seems that it would now be hard(er) to downvote her because she specifically said she expects that, even given a legitimate reason to downvote.
Well, some of Eliezer’s posts about religion and religious thought have been more than a little harsh. (I couldn’t find it, but there was a post where he said something along the lines of “I have written about religion as the largest imaginable plague on thinking...”) They didn’t explicitly say that religious people are to be scorned, but it’s very easy to read in that implication, especially since many people who are equally vocal about religion being bad do hold that opinion.
Being honest and having reasonable expectations of being treated like a troll does not disqualify a post from being a troll.
Hello, I expect you won’t like me, I’m
Classic troll opening. Challenges us to take the post seriously. Our collective ‘manhood’ is threatened if react normally (eg saying “trolls fuck off”).
dont want to be turned onto an immortal computer-brain-thing that acts more like Eliezer thinks it should
Insulting straw man with a side of “you are an irrational cult”.
I’ve been lurking for a long time… overcoming bias… sequences… HP:MOR… namedropping
“Seriously, I’m one of you guys”. Concern troll disclaimer. Classic.
evaporative cooling… women… I’m here to help you not be a cult.
Again undertones of “you are a cult and you must accept my medicine or turn into a cult”. Again we are challenged to take it seriously.
I just espoused, it’ll raise the probability that you start worshiping the possibility of becoming immortal polyamorous whatever and taking over the world.
I didn’t quite understand this part, but again, straw man caricature.
I’d rather hang around and keep the Singularity from being an AI that forcibly exterminates all morality and all people who don’t agree with Eliezer Yudkowsky. Not that any of you (especially EY) WANT that, exactly. But anyway, my point is, With Folded Hands is a pretty bad failure mode for the worst-case scenario where EC occurs and EY gets to AI first.
Theres a rhetorical meme on 4chan that elegantly deals with this kind of crap:
implying we don’t care about friendliness implying you know more about friendliness than EY
’nuff said
Okay, ready to be shouted down. I’ll be counting the downvotes as they roll in, I guess. You guys really hate Christians, after all.
classic reddit downvote preventer:
Post a troll or other worthless opinion
Imply that the hivemind wont like it
Appeal to people’s fear of hivemind
Collect upvotes.
You guys really hate Christians, after all. (Am I actually allowed to be here or am I banned for my religion?)
again implying irrational insider/outsider dynamic, hivemind tendencies and even censorship.
Of course the kneejerk response is “no no, we don’t hate you and we certainly won’t censor you; please we want more christian trolls like you”
I’ll probably just leave soon anyway. Nothing good can come of this. I don’t know why I’m doing this. I shouldn’t be here; you don’t want me here, not to mention I probably shouldn’t bother talking to people who only want me to hate God. Why am I even here again? Seriously, why am I not just lurking? That would make more sense.
And top it off with a bit of sympathetic character, damsel-in-distress crap. EDIT: Oh and the bit about hating God is a staw-man. /EDIT
This is not necessarily deliberate, but it doesn’t have to be.
Trolling is a art. and Aspiring_Knitter is a artist. 10⁄10.
I’ve been lurking for a long time… overcoming bias… sequences… HP:MOR… namedropping
“Seriously, I’m one of you guys”. Concern troll disclaimer. Classic.
I don’t follow how indicating that she’s actually read the site can be a mark against her. If the comment had not indicated familiarity with the site content, would you then describe it as less trollish?
it’s a classic troll technique. It’s not independent of the other trollish tendencies. Alone, saying those things does not imply troll, but in the presence of other troll-content it is used to raise perceived standing and lower the probability that they are a troll.
EDIT: and yes, trollish opinions without trollish disclaimers raise probability of plain old stupidity.
EDIT2: Have to be very careful with understanding the causality of evidence supplied by hostile agents. What Evidence Filtered Evidence and so on,
I disagree. It’s an honest expression of feeling, and a reasonable statement of expectations, given LW’s other run-ins with self-identified theists. It may be a bit overstated, but not terribly much.
Do you really think it’s only a bit overstated? I mean, has anybody been banned for being religious? And has anybody here indicated that they hate Christians without immediately being called on falling into blue vs. green thinking?
From her other posts, AspiringKnitter strikes me as being open-minded and quite intelligent, but that last paragraph really irks me. It’s self-debasing in an almost manipulative way—as if she actually wants us to talk to her like we “only want [her] to hate God” or as if we “really hate Christians”. Anybody who has spent any non-trivial amount of time on LW would know that we certainly don’t hate people we disagree with, at least to the best of my knowledge, so asserting that is not a charitable or reasonable expectation. Plus, it seems that it would now be hard(er) to downvote her because she specifically said she expects that, even given a legitimate reason to downvote.
I agree. See my other post deconstructing the troll-techniques used.
Well, some of Eliezer’s posts about religion and religious thought have been more than a little harsh. (I couldn’t find it, but there was a post where he said something along the lines of “I have written about religion as the largest imaginable plague on thinking...”) They didn’t explicitly say that religious people are to be scorned, but it’s very easy to read in that implication, especially since many people who are equally vocal about religion being bad do hold that opinion.
Banned? Not that I know of. But there have certainly been Christians who have been serially downvoted, perhaps more than they deserved.
“Hate” may be too strong a word, but the original poster’s meaning seems to lean closer to “openly intolerant”, which is true and partially justified.
EDIT: Looking back, the original poster was asking if they would be banned, not claiming so. So that doesn’t seem to be a valid criticism.
Being honest and having reasonable expectations of being treated like a troll does not disqualify a post from being a troll.
Classic troll opening. Challenges us to take the post seriously. Our collective ‘manhood’ is threatened if react normally (eg saying “trolls fuck off”).
Insulting straw man with a side of “you are an irrational cult”.
“Seriously, I’m one of you guys”. Concern troll disclaimer. Classic.
Again undertones of “you are a cult and you must accept my medicine or turn into a cult”. Again we are challenged to take it seriously.
I didn’t quite understand this part, but again, straw man caricature.
Theres a rhetorical meme on 4chan that elegantly deals with this kind of crap:
’nuff said
classic reddit downvote preventer:
Post a troll or other worthless opinion
Imply that the hivemind wont like it
Appeal to people’s fear of hivemind
Collect upvotes.
again implying irrational insider/outsider dynamic, hivemind tendencies and even censorship.
Of course the kneejerk response is “no no, we don’t hate you and we certainly won’t censor you; please we want more christian trolls like you”
And top it off with a bit of sympathetic character, damsel-in-distress crap. EDIT: Oh and the bit about hating God is a staw-man. /EDIT
This is not necessarily deliberate, but it doesn’t have to be.
Trolling is a art. and Aspiring_Knitter is a artist. 10⁄10.
I don’t follow how indicating that she’s actually read the site can be a mark against her. If the comment had not indicated familiarity with the site content, would you then describe it as less trollish?
it’s a classic troll technique. It’s not independent of the other trollish tendencies. Alone, saying those things does not imply troll, but in the presence of other troll-content it is used to raise perceived standing and lower the probability that they are a troll.
EDIT: and yes, trollish opinions without trollish disclaimers raise probability of plain old stupidity.
EDIT2: Have to be very careful with understanding the causality of evidence supplied by hostile agents. What Evidence Filtered Evidence and so on,