Personally the thread just seems a bit mean. If there had been a number of recent torture articles it might’ve been justified on a meta-level. But as it is, it seems to be picking on Roko alone. And that doesn’t warrant a top-level post. Or even something with this much snark.
We shouldn’t be discouraged from talking about our unusual ideas with snark, counter arguments and down voting should be sufficient.
...OK, I’m very confused as to what the point of this is.
Personally the thread just seems a bit mean. If there had been a number of recent torture articles it might’ve been justified on a meta-level. But as it is, it seems to be picking on Roko alone. And that doesn’t warrant a top-level post. Or even something with this much snark.
We shouldn’t be discouraged from talking about our unusual ideas with snark, counter arguments and down voting should be sufficient.
Evidence, please?
I meant should in the normative sense. I would rather not see snark become a necessary or frequently used tool. Or do you not find snark cruel?
Fair enough—I mistook it for a substantive claim. I am willing to defer to that preference; it is a common one, and reasonable.
The literal point was to make fun of Roko’s last post.
It wasn’t just roko, although roko’s post was what finally irritated me enough to make a post about it.
Note that the phenomenon long predates that.
It’s kind of like the Less Wrong version of a unicorn chaser. We’re an odd bunch.