What I’m curious about is whether it’ll work, be more memorable than other things I could’ve done quickly.
Another thing that you could have done quickly is write the same message but with the passive aggressive status game truncated. Finish with “hygiene.)”. That would have got your point across at least as well and even the act of lending support to a challenged downvote that way already does a lot to undermine Crux without adding in any gratuitous insults.
No, the above wouldn’t have been quite as ‘memorable’ as what you chose to do but at least people would have remembered your desired message regarding epistemic hygiene. This way the lesson that people will take—and that people should take—from your move is that petty passive aggressive status assassination is frowned upon here.
That would have got your point across at least as well
Emotional experiences are remembered better, that much I think is true. This seems to be my real reason for adding that remark; the problem is that I don’t sympathize enough to automatically notice the downside, so this event repeats the lesson once more.
This way the lesson that people will take—and that people should take—from your move is that petty passive aggressive status assassination is frowned upon here.
A separate concern.
Edit: Yup, status defense talking, please disregard this.
No Vladimir, you miss the point. This isn’t just a side effect. You actively undermine the memorability of the position you claim that you are trying to make memorable.
To the extent that you truly are unfettered from all other concerns like maintaining a non-hostile community, basic courtesy and not undermining your own reputation you have still failed at the rudimentary “memorability maximisation” goal you attribute to yourself.
Your point not being remembered is exactly the concern that was mentioned. And it will indeed be remembered less because you decided to obfuscate your point behind personal insults (insults of a different user, no less!) This is only magnified by attempts to justify the move as though it is an optimized support of some higher ideal of epistemic purity.
(As I added in an edit to that now-removed comment, I’ve noticed that the comment was a status defense response on my part, which permitted that statement to be posted past its relevance. A rationalization, finally! I agree that different impressions compete for memorability, and intended one can be displaced by something undesirable.)
Another thing that you could have done quickly is write the same message but with the passive aggressive status game truncated. Finish with “hygiene.)”. That would have got your point across at least as well and even the act of lending support to a challenged downvote that way already does a lot to undermine Crux without adding in any gratuitous insults.
No, the above wouldn’t have been quite as ‘memorable’ as what you chose to do but at least people would have remembered your desired message regarding epistemic hygiene. This way the lesson that people will take—and that people should take—from your move is that petty passive aggressive status assassination is frowned upon here.
Emotional experiences are remembered better, that much I think is true. This seems to be my real reason for adding that remark; the problem is that I don’t sympathize enough to automatically notice the downside, so this event repeats the lesson once more.
A separate concern.
Edit: Yup, status defense talking, please disregard this.
No Vladimir, you miss the point. This isn’t just a side effect. You actively undermine the memorability of the position you claim that you are trying to make memorable.
To the extent that you truly are unfettered from all other concerns like maintaining a non-hostile community, basic courtesy and not undermining your own reputation you have still failed at the rudimentary “memorability maximisation” goal you attribute to yourself.
Your point not being remembered is exactly the concern that was mentioned. And it will indeed be remembered less because you decided to obfuscate your point behind personal insults (insults of a different user, no less!) This is only magnified by attempts to justify the move as though it is an optimized support of some higher ideal of epistemic purity.
(As I added in an edit to that now-removed comment, I’ve noticed that the comment was a status defense response on my part, which permitted that statement to be posted past its relevance. A rationalization, finally! I agree that different impressions compete for memorability, and intended one can be displaced by something undesirable.)