Yep, I strong-upvoted the comment (to move it closer to +5, which is around what I think it deserves). It was at around −20 karma when I did so, and would still be at around −20 karma if I withdrew my vote.
I’ve also seen lots of people describe reasons Russia/Putin might have felt that this was a defensive war, ways the US uses Russel conjugates to absolve itself while condemning the same behavior in other countries, etc. This is happening mostly on twitter, where I’ve done my best with my bubble but is not a medium known for facilitating nuance or a gentle tone.
I guess it’s less useful to have a discussion on LW if it’s already happening on Twitter. (If that’s your point.)
At the same time, the claim that the US and NATO have a lot of responsibility seems plausible on its face, and ‘What would the norms ideally be around Russia’s behavior?’ is an interesting question.
I certainly don’t like the idea of LW being even worse than Twitter at good discussion and inquiry. The main message I inferred from the −20 downvotes was ‘any endorsement of this point of view will be downvoted to oblivion so that others can’t readily see or discuss it; but the reverse point of view is fine to take for granted here’. Twitter without any legibility or source-citing is already way better than that.
If the reason for the downvotes is to try to protect LW’s epistemic purity… well, take into account that others might read the −20 the same way I did, and for the sake of LW’s epistemic purity, be unusually clear and explicit about why you’re opting to hide the comment.
What those tweets did have was specific data for why they believe certain things (e.g. “here’s specific things the US did that are equivalent to Russia’s recent actions”, “here are NATO’s actions over the last 5 years and why Putin would reasonably find them threatening”). Those are specific epistemically legible claims that can be debated.
How many of the comments on this page meet that standard of rigor? I think if we were applying normal LW standards to the comment in question, then someone would step in to challenge the comment (ask for arguments/evidence), but we wouldn’t instantly downvote it to hell without any conversation.
Some reasons for the ‘you can say weird stuff and not be insta-downvoted’ norm:
It would just inhibit ordinary conversation too much to require everyone to cite all their possibly-disputable comments to that degree. It often makes more sense to wait for someone to request sources/arguments, rather than spending an hour doing a lit review only to find out no one cares.
Merely knowing that there’s disagreement about an important topic can be valuable, even if you don’t know why the disagreement exists. (Assuming it’s informed disagreement between LWers in good standing.) There are many, many cases where I’d rather someone post a contentious view to LW (without defending it) than that they stay silent (because they don’t want to write the comment if it’s that much of a time investment).
the “this is so obviously true I can be mean to you for not understanding it” tone, which I think is basically poison even when someone is 100% correct.
I’m still not seeing it. The comment seemed critical of the US government, but my mental model would have expected someone who wrote that comment to respond to pushback in a friendly and cordial manner.
I think there are a bunch of subtle things that make the tone feel very mild to me: the “In my opinion”, the moderately-short evenly spaced sentences ending in periods, the fancy aristocratic language (“promethean ambition”), etc. Even the shortness of the comment maybe makes it feel more relaxed to me; someone whose comment is that pithy is less likely to be having Angry Rant feelings.
I just read Mitchell’s second comment in the thread, which seems perfectly cordial and clear, and matches what I’d have predicted from the initial comment. (The second comment also stands at −4 karma, bizarrely.)
I feel much more confident now that the votes are just straightforwardly bad and partisan, and a poor reflection of LW’s core values.
Mitchell’s original comment now stands at 0, which is quite strong evidence to me that the existence of this discussion has itself led people to upvote it; which in turn further indicts the original downvotes, since a robust, defensible voting pattern should not be so easily overturned by a meta-discussion like this one.
For what it’s worth, when I first encountered Mitchell’s comment three days ago, it was at −4, and I strong-upvoted it only for it to then receive multiple strong-downvotes, further sinking its karma score; there was also a now-deleted response from user “lc” consisting of a single sentence to the effect of “I believe the invaders should die”, which, if memory serves correctly, had been upvoted to +7 at one point before deletion.
I think this is pretty obviously terrible, and find myself rather disappointed by the performance of the LW userbase in this case. Politics is the mind-killer, but it seems there are people here who are no less susceptible to mind-killing than the general population, which is frankly embarrassing.
In fairness, it only takes a few passionate downvoters to downvote something a lot, and a few passionate upvoters to cancel them out; it could be that I convinced a couple people but that the equilibrium will still be elsewhere.
I think this is pretty obviously terrible, and find myself rather disappointed by the performance of the LW userbase in this case. Politics is the mind-killer, but it seems there are people here who are no less susceptible to mind-killing than the general population, which is frankly embarrassing.
“It is the least annoying role I have ever played. If Lord Voldemort says that something is to be done, people obey him and do not argue. I did not have to suppress my impulse to Cruciate people being idiots; for once it was all part of the role. If someone was making the game less pleasant for me, I just said Avadakedavra regardless of whether that was strategically wise, and they never bothered me again.” Professor Quirrell casually chopped a small worm into bits. “But my true epiphany came on a certain day when David Monroe was trying to get an entry permit for an Asian instructor in combat tactics, and a Ministry clerk denied it, smiling smugly. I asked the Ministry clerk if he understood that this measure was meant to save his life and the Ministry clerk only smiled more. Then in fury I threw aside masks and caution, I used my Legilimency, I dipped my fingers into the cesspit of his stupidity and tore out the truth from his mind. I did not understand and I wanted to understand. With my command of Legilimency I forced his tiny clerk-brain to live out alternatives, seeing what his clerk-brain would think of Lucius Malfoy, or Lord Voldemort, or Dumbledore standing in my place.” Professor Quirrell’s hands had slowed, as he delicately peeled bits and small strips from a chunk of candle-wax. “What I finally realized that day is complicated, boy, which is why I did not understand it earlier in life. To you I shall try to describe it anyway. Today I know that Dumbledore does not stand at the top of the world, for all that he is the Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation. People speak ill of Dumbledore openly, they criticize him proudly and to his face, in a way they would not dare stand up to Lucius Malfoy. You have acted disrespectfully toward Dumbledore, boy, do you know why you did so?”
“I’m… not sure,” Harry said. Having Tom Riddle’s leftover neural patterns was certainly an obvious hypothesis.
“Wolves, dogs, even chickens, fight for dominance among themselves. What I finally understood, from that clerk’s mind, was that to him Lucius Malfoy had dominance, Lord Voldemort had dominance, and David Monroe and Albus Dumbledore did not. By taking the side of good, by professing to abide in the light, we had made ourselves unthreatening. In Britain, Lucius Malfoy has dominance, for he can call in your loans, or send Ministry bureaucrats against your shop, or crucify you in the Daily Prophet, if you go openly against his will. And the most powerful wizard in the world has no dominance, because everyone knows that he is,” Professor Quirrell’s lips curled, “a hero out of stories, relentlessly self-effacing and too humble for vengeance. Tell me, child, have you ever seen a drama where the hero, before he consents to save his country, demands so much gold as a barrister might receive for a court case?”
“Actually there have been a lot of heroes like that in Muggle fiction, I’ll name Han Solo just to start-”
“Well, in magical drama it is not so. It is all humble heroes like Dumbledore. It is the fantasy of the powerful slave who will never truly rise above you, never demand your respect, never even ask you for pay. Do you understand now?”
“I… think so,” Harry said. Frodo and Samwise from Lord of the Rings did seem to match the archetype of a completely non-threatening hero. “You’re saying that’s how people think of Dumbledore? I don’t believe the Hogwarts students see him as a hobbit.”
“In Hogwarts, Dumbledore does punish certain transgressions against his will, so he is feared to some degree—though the students still make free to mock him in more than whispers. Outside this castle, Dumbledore is sneered at; they began to call him mad, and he aped the part like a fool. Step into the role of a savior out of plays, and people see you as a slave to whose services they are entitled and whom it is their enjoyment to criticize; for it is the privilege of masters to sit back and call forth helpful corrections while the slaves labor. Only in the tales of the ancient Greeks, from when men were less sophisticated in their delusions, may you see the hero who is also high. Hector, Aeneas, those were heroes who retained their right of vengeance upon those who insulted them, who could demand gold and jewels in payment for their services without sparking indignation. And if Lord Voldemort conquered Britain, he might then condescend to show himself noble in victory; and nobody would take his goodwill for granted, nor chirp corrections at him if his work was not to their liking. When he won, he would have true respect. I understood that day in the Ministry that by envying Dumbledore, I had shown myself as deluded as Dumbledore himself. I understood that I had been trying for the wrong place all along. You should know this to be true, boy, for you have made freer to speak ill of Dumbledore than you ever dared speak ill of me. Even in your own thoughts, I wager, for instinct runs deep. You knew that it might be to your cost to mock the strong and vengeful Professor Quirrell, but that there was no cost in disrespecting the weak and harmless Dumbledore.”
This is an analogy from HPMOR that I think should explain why I responded in the way I did. Frankly, I don’t know if I even disagree with the above poster. But my suspicion is that people like Mitchell feel obligated to blame the actions of Putin on the U.S., fundamentally, because they view the U.S. as their “slave nation”. There is an isolated demand for both competence and selflessness when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. In practice, Americans and their government are talked about like heroes in a Marvel movie, whom are simply expected to act optimally and then get criticized by their partners when they don’t. Authoritarian cabals like Putin’s are, at best, treated like a force of nature, and, at worst, instinctually respected for having the “courage” to just remove any external or internal dissent by force.
I try to bring up the invaders because the tendency is to treat the people who actually chose to invade Ukraine like they aren’t old enough to make their own decisions. Putin is not a CIA agent. He decided to invade Ukraine for very specific, political, reasons; reasons that I do not think have any serious underlying motivation in national security for Russia, and instead were almost entirely attributable to the success and popularity of his previous annexation of Crimea. I’d like to keep this comment up @lsusr, so tell me if it’s too political for the thread.
Lord Voldemort is the villain of HPMOR, not the hero. His words are those of a snake.
My priorities in moderating this comment thread are to ① maintain a welcoming environment to people living in countries on all sides of this conflict and ②to cultivate productive discourse. My commenting guidelines are instrumental toward achieving the aforestated objectives.
Discussing what the US and Putin should or shouldn’t do (from a geopolitical perspective) is allowed. Discussing what the US and Putin do or don’t get criticized for is off-topic because every famous person and institution gets lots of unjustified criticism. It happens when you’re a saint. It happens when you’re a supervillain.
The way to keep criticism from poisoning your mind and turning you into Lord Voldemort is to speak in the positive. Criticizing others’ criticism is unproductive.
But my suspicion is that people like Mitchell feel obligated to blame the actions of Putin on the U.S., fundamentally, because they view the U.S. as their “slave nation”.
Mitchell has not used the phrase “slave nation”.
I’d like to keep this comment up @lsusr, so tell me if it’s too political for the thread.
I have already deleted one of your comments, not because it was political but because it was hateful.
I am hesitant to ban you from commenting on my posts because some of your comments have been very high quality. Alas, moderating your comments takes 100× the effort of moderating the average comment (which takes approximately zero effort). I am not a moderator and I do not want to become one. I will hold you to a higher bar than other commenters. If you write another comment that breaks the rules or which I feel is likely to lead to unproductive territory, I will ban you from commenting on my posts. This is your second warning. You will not get a third warning.
I will allow your comment to stay up. This conversation thread is now over.
Yep, I strong-upvoted the comment (to move it closer to +5, which is around what I think it deserves). It was at around −20 karma when I did so, and would still be at around −20 karma if I withdrew my vote.
I guess it’s less useful to have a discussion on LW if it’s already happening on Twitter. (If that’s your point.)
At the same time, the claim that the US and NATO have a lot of responsibility seems plausible on its face, and ‘What would the norms ideally be around Russia’s behavior?’ is an interesting question.
I certainly don’t like the idea of LW being even worse than Twitter at good discussion and inquiry. The main message I inferred from the −20 downvotes was ‘any endorsement of this point of view will be downvoted to oblivion so that others can’t readily see or discuss it; but the reverse point of view is fine to take for granted here’. Twitter without any legibility or source-citing is already way better than that.
If the reason for the downvotes is to try to protect LW’s epistemic purity… well, take into account that others might read the −20 the same way I did, and for the sake of LW’s epistemic purity, be unusually clear and explicit about why you’re opting to hide the comment.
How many of the comments on this page meet that standard of rigor? I think if we were applying normal LW standards to the comment in question, then someone would step in to challenge the comment (ask for arguments/evidence), but we wouldn’t instantly downvote it to hell without any conversation.
Some reasons for the ‘you can say weird stuff and not be insta-downvoted’ norm:
It would just inhibit ordinary conversation too much to require everyone to cite all their possibly-disputable comments to that degree. It often makes more sense to wait for someone to request sources/arguments, rather than spending an hour doing a lit review only to find out no one cares.
Merely knowing that there’s disagreement about an important topic can be valuable, even if you don’t know why the disagreement exists. (Assuming it’s informed disagreement between LWers in good standing.) There are many, many cases where I’d rather someone post a contentious view to LW (without defending it) than that they stay silent (because they don’t want to write the comment if it’s that much of a time investment).
I’m still not seeing it. The comment seemed critical of the US government, but my mental model would have expected someone who wrote that comment to respond to pushback in a friendly and cordial manner.
I think there are a bunch of subtle things that make the tone feel very mild to me: the “In my opinion”, the moderately-short evenly spaced sentences ending in periods, the fancy aristocratic language (“promethean ambition”), etc. Even the shortness of the comment maybe makes it feel more relaxed to me; someone whose comment is that pithy is less likely to be having Angry Rant feelings.
I just read Mitchell’s second comment in the thread, which seems perfectly cordial and clear, and matches what I’d have predicted from the initial comment. (The second comment also stands at −4 karma, bizarrely.)
I feel much more confident now that the votes are just straightforwardly bad and partisan, and a poor reflection of LW’s core values.
Mitchell’s original comment now stands at 0, which is quite strong evidence to me that the existence of this discussion has itself led people to upvote it; which in turn further indicts the original downvotes, since a robust, defensible voting pattern should not be so easily overturned by a meta-discussion like this one.
For what it’s worth, when I first encountered Mitchell’s comment three days ago, it was at −4, and I strong-upvoted it only for it to then receive multiple strong-downvotes, further sinking its karma score; there was also a now-deleted response from user “lc” consisting of a single sentence to the effect of “I believe the invaders should die”, which, if memory serves correctly, had been upvoted to +7 at one point before deletion.
I think this is pretty obviously terrible, and find myself rather disappointed by the performance of the LW userbase in this case. Politics is the mind-killer, but it seems there are people here who are no less susceptible to mind-killing than the general population, which is frankly embarrassing.
In fairness, it only takes a few passionate downvoters to downvote something a lot, and a few passionate upvoters to cancel them out; it could be that I convinced a couple people but that the equilibrium will still be elsewhere.
Now who could’ve seen that coming.
Politics is the mind-killer, period. No ‘if’s and ’but’s
This is an analogy from HPMOR that I think should explain why I responded in the way I did. Frankly, I don’t know if I even disagree with the above poster. But my suspicion is that people like Mitchell feel obligated to blame the actions of Putin on the U.S., fundamentally, because they view the U.S. as their “slave nation”. There is an isolated demand for both competence and selflessness when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. In practice, Americans and their government are talked about like heroes in a Marvel movie, whom are simply expected to act optimally and then get criticized by their partners when they don’t. Authoritarian cabals like Putin’s are, at best, treated like a force of nature, and, at worst, instinctually respected for having the “courage” to just remove any external or internal dissent by force.
I try to bring up the invaders because the tendency is to treat the people who actually chose to invade Ukraine like they aren’t old enough to make their own decisions. Putin is not a CIA agent. He decided to invade Ukraine for very specific, political, reasons; reasons that I do not think have any serious underlying motivation in national security for Russia, and instead were almost entirely attributable to the success and popularity of his previous annexation of Crimea. I’d like to keep this comment up @lsusr, so tell me if it’s too political for the thread.
Lord Voldemort is the villain of HPMOR, not the hero. His words are those of a snake.
My priorities in moderating this comment thread are to ① maintain a welcoming environment to people living in countries on all sides of this conflict and ②to cultivate productive discourse. My commenting guidelines are instrumental toward achieving the aforestated objectives.
Discussing what the US and Putin should or shouldn’t do (from a geopolitical perspective) is allowed. Discussing what the US and Putin do or don’t get criticized for is off-topic because every famous person and institution gets lots of unjustified criticism. It happens when you’re a saint. It happens when you’re a supervillain.
The way to keep criticism from poisoning your mind and turning you into Lord Voldemort is to speak in the positive. Criticizing others’ criticism is unproductive.
Mitchell has not used the phrase “slave nation”.
I have already deleted one of your comments, not because it was political but because it was hateful.
I am hesitant to ban you from commenting on my posts because some of your comments have been very high quality. Alas, moderating your comments takes 100× the effort of moderating the average comment (which takes approximately zero effort). I am not a moderator and I do not want to become one. I will hold you to a higher bar than other commenters. If you write another comment that breaks the rules or which I feel is likely to lead to unproductive territory, I will ban you from commenting on my posts. This is your second warning. You will not get a third warning.
I will allow your comment to stay up. This conversation thread is now over.
(speaking as a LW mod, I super appreciate lsuser putting the time into moderating their posts on a tricky topic)