Yeah, you would not make a good host if you welcomed your guests by interrogating them.
Being a good host means creating an environment in which the right people feel welcome. On LW the right people happen to be people who like to explain how they reason.
Yeah, you would not make a good host if you welcomed your guests by interrogating them. ‘Of course your are skeptic about the value of explaining what you mean’ - what on earth does this mean?
You started by saying you are skeptical about this website way of handling things.
I answered with a standard way of this websites way of handling things. Asking you to taboo a term you used, without specifically using the word “taboo” because it’s internal jargon.
As you said at the beginning you are indeed skeptical of ideas of this website. Tabooing happens to be one of them.
It’s a new concept for you and for you being skeptical is not about philosophical skepticism but about having a high bar to adopting new concepts.
Being a good host means creating an environment in which the right people feel welcome.
This statement is slightly stronger than I would word it. In particular, since Perrr333 has expressed that he/she does not feel welcome, combining that fact with this statement would imply one of the following conclusions:
LessWrong is not being a good host.
Perrr333 is not one of the “right people” for LessWrong.
I don’t believe 1 is true, and I don’t think you can determine the truth of 2 after so little time. As a result, I don’t quite agree with the quoted statement above. Is that statement really what you meant to say?
This statement is slightly stronger than I would word it.
My statements are polarized. Polarization has the advantage of making clear points.
LessWrong is not being a good host.
LW is a forum. It’s not a host.
Perrr333 is not one of the “right people” for LessWrong.
As long as he’s not willing to be asked why he believes what he believes (’being interrogated”), he’s not in that category. Not being willing to go there, leads to a lot of pointless debates for the sake of debating.
On the other hand it’s something that he can easily change if he’s willing.
My statements are polarized. Polarization has the advantage of making clear points.
Fair enough.
LW is a forum. It’s not a host.
Still, wouldn’t you say LW should at least strive to provide a fairly pleasant environment for its frequenters?
As long as he’s not willing to be asked why he believes what he believes (’being interrogated”), he’s not in that category. Not being willing to go there, leads to a lot of pointless debates for the sake of debating.
On the other hand it’s something that he can easily change if he’s willing.
I don’t really disagree with this, but I’m not sure his behavior in this thread alone can be used as a reliable indicator of whether he’s willing to be “interrogated”. Possibly he may be more receptive to questioning in other threads.
Being a good host means creating an environment in which the right people feel welcome. On LW the right people happen to be people who like to explain how they reason.
You started by saying you are skeptical about this website way of handling things.
I answered with a standard way of this websites way of handling things. Asking you to taboo a term you used, without specifically using the word “taboo” because it’s internal jargon.
As you said at the beginning you are indeed skeptical of ideas of this website. Tabooing happens to be one of them. It’s a new concept for you and for you being skeptical is not about philosophical skepticism but about having a high bar to adopting new concepts.
This statement is slightly stronger than I would word it. In particular, since Perrr333 has expressed that he/she does not feel welcome, combining that fact with this statement would imply one of the following conclusions:
LessWrong is not being a good host.
Perrr333 is not one of the “right people” for LessWrong.
I don’t believe 1 is true, and I don’t think you can determine the truth of 2 after so little time. As a result, I don’t quite agree with the quoted statement above. Is that statement really what you meant to say?
My statements are polarized. Polarization has the advantage of making clear points.
LW is a forum. It’s not a host.
As long as he’s not willing to be asked why he believes what he believes (’being interrogated”), he’s not in that category. Not being willing to go there, leads to a lot of pointless debates for the sake of debating.
On the other hand it’s something that he can easily change if he’s willing.
Fair enough.
Still, wouldn’t you say LW should at least strive to provide a fairly pleasant environment for its frequenters?
I don’t really disagree with this, but I’m not sure his behavior in this thread alone can be used as a reliable indicator of whether he’s willing to be “interrogated”. Possibly he may be more receptive to questioning in other threads.