It’s not a norm of discourse that one cannot state that a position is absurd.
Speaking as someone who makes very little effort to avoid honey consumption, my opinion of Habryka would have dropped much less if he’d said something like: “Sorry, this position is just intuitively absurd to me, and I’m happy to reject it on that basis.” So I don’t think the issue has to do with absurdity per se.
Your ideas about reasonable discourse can be different from mine, and Ben West’s, and Hacker News’. That’s OK. I was just sharing my opinion.
It’s been a while since I read that discussion. I remember my estimation of Habryka dropped dramatically when I read it. Maybe I can try to reconstruct why in more detail if you want. But contrasting what Habryka wrote with the HN commenting guidelines seems like a reasonable starting point.
And it is a virtue of discourse to show up and argue for one’s stances, as Habryka does throughout that thread!
You’ll notice that Habryka doesn’t provide any concrete example of Geoffrey violating a norm of reasonable discourse in this thread. I did provide a concrete example.
Is it possible that invokation of such “norms” can be a mere figleaf for drawing ingroup/outgroup boundaries in the traditional tribalistic way?
Is it too much to ask that Dear Leadership is held to the same standards, and treated the same way, as everyone else is?
It’s fine for you to have takes about my commenting style on those threads. I do continue to think that post was really quite bad (where, to be clear, most of my objection is to the author somehow taking the result at face value, while feeling no need to caveat or justify yourself, and linking to the Rethink Priorities report as an authoritative source. I don’t have the same objection to e.g. this old post by Luke which raised this as a hypothesis but doesn’t make the same errors).
But even if you think I am really mistaken here, I don’t think there is almost any standard that would make sense to defend on LessWrong that Geoffrey doesn’t routinely violate.
Some quick examples:
Cenk, you’re just upset that in fifty years, nobody will remember an antisemitic hack like you, but there will still be an Israel, standing proud.
Behind your pretty-boy mask , you’re a sociopathic ghoul. Glad that Americans are learning the truth about the deep, dark, bitter pit where your soul should be.
Keir is no different from Ephialtes—the resentful, deformed Spartan who betrayed his homeland to help the Persians invade, hoping they would reward him with the honor and validation his own people would never give him.
This goes on and on and on and on. He has hundreds of tweets like this, with insults, calls for violence, extreme aggression, sneering dismissal, the whole rickamarole.
Again, I appreciate a bunch of his work, but I really don’t think that even by your lights we treat discourse anything close to the same.
Keep in mind that US conservatives are liable to be reading this thread, trying to determine whether they want to ally with a group such as yourselves. Conservatives have much more leverage to dictate alliance terms than you do. Note the alliance with the AI art people was apparently already wrecked. Something you might ask yourselves: If you can’t make nice with a guy like me, who shares more of your ideals than either artists or US conservatives do, how do you expect to make nice with US conservatives?
Reiterating what I said above that “conservatives” should be taboo’d here. It appears to me that this faction is flashy but do not have enough political capital or leverage to decide Republican policy relative to the tech right and neocons, and could only serve as tie-breaker in issues where Ds and (other) Rs disagree (e.g. antitrust policy). On the flip side, it’s worthwhile talking about how to interact with anti-techs whether they are left-coded (deep greens), right-coded (national conservatives), or whatever the anti-AI artists are.
Sorry, this position is just intuitively absurd to me, and I’m happy to reject it on that basis
To be clear, this is not my position! I am not an intuitionist or anything close to it. This position also seems absurd to me after thinking hard about moral philosophy, and as someone who is pretty sympathetic to general positions that morality can be quite counterintuitive and weird. Please do not summarize my position as arguing primarily from intuition!
Speaking as someone who makes very little effort to avoid honey consumption, my opinion of Habryka would have dropped much less if he’d said something like: “Sorry, this position is just intuitively absurd to me, and I’m happy to reject it on that basis.” So I don’t think the issue has to do with absurdity per se.
I said I thought he violated “what I’d consider reasonable norms of discourse”. You can see Ben West thought something similar.
I’d estimate that Habryka violated roughly 7 or 8 of the Hacker News commenting guidelines in that discussion.
Your ideas about reasonable discourse can be different from mine, and Ben West’s, and Hacker News’. That’s OK. I was just sharing my opinion.
It’s been a while since I read that discussion. I remember my estimation of Habryka dropped dramatically when I read it. Maybe I can try to reconstruct why in more detail if you want. But contrasting what Habryka wrote with the HN commenting guidelines seems like a reasonable starting point.
You’ll notice that Habryka doesn’t provide any concrete example of Geoffrey violating a norm of reasonable discourse in this thread. I did provide a concrete example.
Is it possible that invokation of such “norms” can be a mere figleaf for drawing ingroup/outgroup boundaries in the traditional tribalistic way?
Is it too much to ask that Dear Leadership is held to the same standards, and treated the same way, as everyone else is?
It’s fine for you to have takes about my commenting style on those threads. I do continue to think that post was really quite bad (where, to be clear, most of my objection is to the author somehow taking the result at face value, while feeling no need to caveat or justify yourself, and linking to the Rethink Priorities report as an authoritative source. I don’t have the same objection to e.g. this old post by Luke which raised this as a hypothesis but doesn’t make the same errors).
But even if you think I am really mistaken here, I don’t think there is almost any standard that would make sense to defend on LessWrong that Geoffrey doesn’t routinely violate.
Some quick examples:
This goes on and on and on and on. He has hundreds of tweets like this, with insults, calls for violence, extreme aggression, sneering dismissal, the whole rickamarole.
Again, I appreciate a bunch of his work, but I really don’t think that even by your lights we treat discourse anything close to the same.
Keep in mind that US conservatives are liable to be reading this thread, trying to determine whether they want to ally with a group such as yourselves. Conservatives have much more leverage to dictate alliance terms than you do. Note the alliance with the AI art people was apparently already wrecked. Something you might ask yourselves: If you can’t make nice with a guy like me, who shares more of your ideals than either artists or US conservatives do, how do you expect to make nice with US conservatives?
Reiterating what I said above that “conservatives” should be taboo’d here. It appears to me that this faction is flashy but do not have enough political capital or leverage to decide Republican policy relative to the tech right and neocons, and could only serve as tie-breaker in issues where Ds and (other) Rs disagree (e.g. antitrust policy). On the flip side, it’s worthwhile talking about how to interact with anti-techs whether they are left-coded (deep greens), right-coded (national conservatives), or whatever the anti-AI artists are.
To be clear, this is not my position! I am not an intuitionist or anything close to it. This position also seems absurd to me after thinking hard about moral philosophy, and as someone who is pretty sympathetic to general positions that morality can be quite counterintuitive and weird. Please do not summarize my position as arguing primarily from intuition!