I’m assuming you read the first paragraph of the previous comment so I’m not sure what to make of this:
There’s some irony in the fact that right now we are having a discussion of the meaning of the term “taboo” when it’s already become clear what Matt meant and that it doesn’t involve the implications you are saying that the word “taboo” has.
There is no one having a “discussion of the meaning of the term “taboo”″ with you. It’s unclear how you got this notion after the previous comment which pointed to the opposite direction.
It might not have been worded perfectly, so if you are confused as to the rationale, I’ll write it out explicitly:
Discussing anyone’s personal opinions regarding differing meanings for a given word so far down the comment chain is unproductive, for straightforward practical reasons.
It would even be difficult to have such a discussion with the parent, and would still probably need to refer to well established dictionary entries, let alone with new interlocutors joining in so much later.
I honestly don’t understand the argument in your first few paragraphs there, at all. But whether I’m being dim or you’re being unclear or whatever, it doesn’t really matter, because it seems we all agree that it would be more productive to get back to the actual discussion.
So how about we do that?
Both of my comments here so far contained (1) some discussion of the term “taboo” and (2) some discussion of the actual underlying thing that Matt was asking you to clarify. In both cases you have responded to 1 and ignored 2. Let’s do 2. I suggest starting with the question at the end of Matt’s latest comment.
I honestly don’t understand the argument in your first few paragraphs there, at all. But whether I’m being dim or you’re being unclear or whatever, it doesn’t really matter, because it seems we all agree that it would be more productive to get back to the actual discussion.
So how about we do that?
As far as I can tell, you joined in with the comment on June 24, 8:12 pm EDT. I’ve only interacted with you twice, regarding the claim:
In this context I don’t think it does mean “prevent it being used in subsequent replies”, it means “please rephrase that thing you just said but without using that specific word”.
...that was written by ‘gjm’, not ‘M. Y. Zuo’. My subsequent reply spelled out why I did not want to engage in such a discussion over meanings.
So do you now understand why I could not have been engaging in ” a discussion of the meaning of the term “taboo” with you?
Anyways, the entirety of the “actual discussion” I’ve had with you are the two prior replies. So there is nothing to “get back to” in regards to (2).
If your intention is to speak on behalf of ‘Matt Goldenberg’ or pick up where he left off, then you should ask him, since he still seems willing to engage with me on the same topic.
Additionally, I’ve partially gone through my comment history while writing this and I’m fairly confident I’ve never even posed a question towards you before the first reply, let alone the “latest isolated demand of rigour”. Can you link to where it happened?
EDIT: Since gjm hasn’t supplied any evidence of me ever making such prior demands on him, or ‘Matt Goldenberg’, or ‘habryka’, etc..., I would have to conclude it’s a totally fabricated claim.
I’ve noticed a few places over the past year where you seemed to be missing the point of a conversation, in a way that’s distracting/offtopic. Each individual time didn’t quite feel a big denough deal to warrant stepping in as a moderator but I think it’s adding up to a point where I think something needs to change.
For the immediate future I’m just letting auto-rate-limits handle the situation, but I may escalate to a longer term rate limit if it continues to be a problem.
Some concrete asks:
On the object level of this conversation, “can you taboo word X” is a pretty standard LessWrong request you should be able to respond to (or, if you don’t feel like it, just say “I don’t feel like getting into it”. Having an elaborate meta conversation about not doing it feels like the least useful use of everyone’s time).
Try to shift back to the object level conversation sooner. In this case you’re still debating whether Taboo is a reasonable thing to do when Matt’s already restated his original question. i.e. what do you (M. Y. Zuo) mean by “I would say that regardless of how weird the dynamics may appear from the outside, if the organization persists generation after generation, and even grows in influence, then it cannot be that weird in actuality.”, without using the word “weird.”
I’d ask you either actually respond to that, or drop the topic. I’m locking the rest of the thread. (People who want to continue discussing this at the meta level can do so over on the Open Thread)
A slightly less concrete ask is “please invest a bit more in understanding where people are coming from, and trying to generally learn the norms on the forum.”
It seems like your assumptions about conversational norms here are very different from mine. E.g., you seem to be thinking of this as a two-person conversation—just me and you—where nothing outside it can be relevant. That’s not how I think forum discussions work.
It doesn’t seem as if any further response from me to you will be helpful at this time.
I’m assuming you read the first paragraph of the previous comment so I’m not sure what to make of this:
There is no one having a “discussion of the meaning of the term “taboo”″ with you. It’s unclear how you got this notion after the previous comment which pointed to the opposite direction.
It might not have been worded perfectly, so if you are confused as to the rationale, I’ll write it out explicitly:
Discussing anyone’s personal opinions regarding differing meanings for a given word so far down the comment chain is unproductive, for straightforward practical reasons.
It would even be difficult to have such a discussion with the parent, and would still probably need to refer to well established dictionary entries, let alone with new interlocutors joining in so much later.
I honestly don’t understand the argument in your first few paragraphs there, at all. But whether I’m being dim or you’re being unclear or whatever, it doesn’t really matter, because it seems we all agree that it would be more productive to get back to the actual discussion.
So how about we do that?
Both of my comments here so far contained (1) some discussion of the term “taboo” and (2) some discussion of the actual underlying thing that Matt was asking you to clarify. In both cases you have responded to 1 and ignored 2. Let’s do 2. I suggest starting with the question at the end of Matt’s latest comment.
As far as I can tell, you joined in with the comment on June 24, 8:12 pm EDT. I’ve only interacted with you twice, regarding the claim:
...that was written by ‘gjm’, not ‘M. Y. Zuo’. My subsequent reply spelled out why I did not want to engage in such a discussion over meanings.
So do you now understand why I could not have been engaging in ” a discussion of the meaning of the term “taboo” with you?
Anyways, the entirety of the “actual discussion” I’ve had with you are the two prior replies. So there is nothing to “get back to” in regards to (2).
If your intention is to speak on behalf of ‘Matt Goldenberg’ or pick up where he left off, then you should ask him, since he still seems willing to engage with me on the same topic.
Additionally, I’ve partially gone through my comment history while writing this and I’m fairly confident I’ve never even posed a question towards you before the first reply, let alone the “latest isolated demand of rigour”. Can you link to where it happened?
EDIT: Since gjm hasn’t supplied any evidence of me ever making such prior demands on him, or ‘Matt Goldenberg’, or ‘habryka’, etc..., I would have to conclude it’s a totally fabricated claim.
Hey M.Y Zuo, I’m commenting with my mod hat on.
I’ve noticed a few places over the past year where you seemed to be missing the point of a conversation, in a way that’s distracting/offtopic. Each individual time didn’t quite feel a big denough deal to warrant stepping in as a moderator but I think it’s adding up to a point where I think something needs to change.
For the immediate future I’m just letting auto-rate-limits handle the situation, but I may escalate to a longer term rate limit if it continues to be a problem.
Some concrete asks:
On the object level of this conversation, “can you taboo word X” is a pretty standard LessWrong request you should be able to respond to (or, if you don’t feel like it, just say “I don’t feel like getting into it”. Having an elaborate meta conversation about not doing it feels like the least useful use of everyone’s time).
Try to shift back to the object level conversation sooner. In this case you’re still debating whether Taboo is a reasonable thing to do when Matt’s already restated his original question. i.e. what do you (M. Y. Zuo) mean by “I would say that regardless of how weird the dynamics may appear from the outside, if the organization persists generation after generation, and even grows in influence, then it cannot be that weird in actuality.”, without using the word “weird.”
I’d ask you either actually respond to that, or drop the topic. I’m locking the rest of the thread. (People who want to continue discussing this at the meta level can do so over on the Open Thread)
A slightly less concrete ask is “please invest a bit more in understanding where people are coming from, and trying to generally learn the norms on the forum.”
It seems like your assumptions about conversational norms here are very different from mine. E.g., you seem to be thinking of this as a two-person conversation—just me and you—where nothing outside it can be relevant. That’s not how I think forum discussions work.
It doesn’t seem as if any further response from me to you will be helpful at this time.