Remember: if an authority is doing something you don’t like, make sure to ask them before you criticize them. By being an org, they are more important than you, and should be respected. Make sure to respect your betters.
More seriously, it doesn’t seem totally unreasonable to ask people you’re criticizing if they’d like to reply. And I do believe in trying to be respectful to those you disagree with to a significant degree most of the time. But, there’s something extremely yikes about this being the default.
Remember: if an authority is doing something you don’t like, make sure to ask them before you criticize them. By being an org, they are more important than you, and should be respected. Make sure to respect your betters.
I’m not sure if you changed your mind or kinda-sorta still mean this. But I also think that it would be best to have a norm of giving individual people a week to read and respond to a critical post, unless you have reason to think they’d use the time to behave in a tactical/adversarial manner. Same for orgs. If you think an organization would just use the week to write something dishonest or undermine your reputation, then go right ahead and post immediately. But if you’re criticizing somebody or an org who you genuinely think will respond in good faith, then a week of response time seems like a great norm to me—it’s what I would want if I was on the receiving end.
I don’t think anyone ever thought you might actually think what you wrote in struck-out text. But what’s not so clear is whether you actually think that’s a fair paraphrase of the real meaning of what jefftk wrote.
I think it’s plainly not a fair paraphrase of the real meaning of what jefftk wrote, and that there is no reason to think that Jeff’s actual opinions or intentions at all resemble those in your struck-out text.
Jeff explicitly says that someone writing a critical piece about an organization shouldn’t feel any pressure to let them influence what it says, let alone to let them stop it being published. He doesn’t say anything at all like “they are more important than you” or “they are better than you” or “you owe them respect”.
And I don’t think there’s anything at all “yikes” about Jeff’s suggestion. I think that on the whole it is likely to produce more useful criticism and more useful discussion.
I am really curious what the “disagreement votes” on this comment actually mean. Gears said “I used this formatting to show sarcasm.”, what does it mean to disagree with that?
yeah no idea either. here’s the version of the original comment I endorse without hesitation:
Remember: if an authority is doing something you don’t like, it’s not always correct to ask them before you criticize them. By being an org, they aren’t more important than you, and shouldn’t always be respected.
It doesn’t seem totally unreasonable to ask people you’re criticizing if they’d like to reply. And I do believe in trying to be respectful to those you disagree with to a significant degree most of the time. But, there’s something extremely yikes about this being the default.
(I upvoted this, and then when I saw it was downvoted I strong upvoted. It’s not exactly a deep analysis but the vibe should be brought into the light.)
Can you say more about what seems ‘yikes’ about defaulting to giving orgs (or individuals) you’re criticizing a few days to prepare a response?
(It’s hard for me to see how to take your stricken initial paragraph, since you said below that you didn’t mean it, but it sort of seems like you do mean it?)
I don’t mind the idea of “hey, I’m publishing this, feel free to comment on it. I can add your comments.” I do mind the idea of “Hey, is there anything about this document you’d like me to edit before I criticize you?”
Hey, is there anything about this document you’d like me to edit before I criticize you?
I am 100% not advocating that! Giving the organization an opportunity to prepare a response is not the same thing as letting them decide or influence what your post says.
Remember: if an authority is doing something you don’t like, make sure to ask them before you criticize them. By being an org, they are more important than you, and should be respected. Make sure to respect your betters.More seriously, it doesn’t seem totally unreasonable to ask people you’re criticizing if they’d like to reply. And I do believe in trying to be respectful to those you disagree with to a significant degree most of the time. But, there’s something extremely yikes about this being the default.
I’m not sure if you changed your mind or kinda-sorta still mean this. But I also think that it would be best to have a norm of giving individual people a week to read and respond to a critical post, unless you have reason to think they’d use the time to behave in a tactical/adversarial manner. Same for orgs. If you think an organization would just use the week to write something dishonest or undermine your reputation, then go right ahead and post immediately. But if you’re criticizing somebody or an org who you genuinely think will respond in good faith, then a week of response time seems like a great norm to me—it’s what I would want if I was on the receiving end.
It’s strikethrough because I’m being sarcastic, and therefore never actually meant it, and in fact mean the opposite.
I don’t think anyone ever thought you might actually think what you wrote in struck-out text. But what’s not so clear is whether you actually think that’s a fair paraphrase of the real meaning of what jefftk wrote.
I think it’s plainly not a fair paraphrase of the real meaning of what jefftk wrote, and that there is no reason to think that Jeff’s actual opinions or intentions at all resemble those in your struck-out text.
Jeff explicitly says that someone writing a critical piece about an organization shouldn’t feel any pressure to let them influence what it says, let alone to let them stop it being published. He doesn’t say anything at all like “they are more important than you” or “they are better than you” or “you owe them respect”.
And I don’t think there’s anything at all “yikes” about Jeff’s suggestion. I think that on the whole it is likely to produce more useful criticism and more useful discussion.
I am really curious what the “disagreement votes” on this comment actually mean. Gears said “I used this formatting to show sarcasm.”, what does it mean to disagree with that?
I think “disagree” means something like “I think you actually did sort of mean it”?
yeah no idea either. here’s the version of the original comment I endorse without hesitation:
(I upvoted this, and then when I saw it was downvoted I strong upvoted. It’s not exactly a deep analysis but the vibe should be brought into the light.)
Can you say more about what seems ‘yikes’ about defaulting to giving orgs (or individuals) you’re criticizing a few days to prepare a response?
(It’s hard for me to see how to take your stricken initial paragraph, since you said below that you didn’t mean it, but it sort of seems like you do mean it?)
Sorry for ambiguity—here’s the version I mean to be endorsing by using strikethrough to denote sarcasm: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Hsix7D2rHyumLAAys/run-posts-by-orgs?commentId=5gGyLeDK4b6nWfbCt—the strikethrough is simply, in my head, the css style that a paragraph which is sarcastic should get. one should not leave paragraphs meant to be inverted un-struck, imo.
I don’t mind the idea of “hey, I’m publishing this, feel free to comment on it. I can add your comments.” I do mind the idea of “Hey, is there anything about this document you’d like me to edit before I criticize you?”
I am 100% not advocating that! Giving the organization an opportunity to prepare a response is not the same thing as letting them decide or influence what your post says.
Hmm. I see.