Yes, but at least I want to lift off the albatross of having to avoid replying her comments (and her mine) even when it adds to the discussion.
In my opinion, you are a poor judge of when a reply to Alicorn’s comments will add to a discussion. Your judgment seems to me to be biased strongly in favor of deciding to reply to Alicorn’s comments so as to highlight what you see as their shortcomings, possibly because you wish to lower her status. Thus, what you see as a useful contribution might be seen by others as the latest in a series of unwarranted snarky put-downs.
Therefore, if your primary desire is to discuss general issues that Alicorn also contributes to, you should take great pains to make it clear that you are not attempting to interact with Alicorn, much less disparage her. Concretely, this means that you would:
(1) not address Alicorn in the second person
(2) not state or imply that Alicorn’s posts are worthless or nearly worthless
(3) not ask, directly or indirectly, what Alicorn’s opinion on a subject is
but would instead
(4) make assertions about an abstract topic, using the third person
(5) use polite phrases like “no offense,” “nothing personal,” or “in my opinion”
(6) ask for the opinion of other LW commenters in general or for the opinion of specific named LWers who you get along with.
Minor note- the phrases “nothing personal” and “no offense” can often have the exact opposite of the intended result. Tthey can come across as condescending and very often when people use them they really are trying to be offensive, although they may not realize it. (A relevant quote from me from about 10 years ago “No offense, but the only thing saving that argument from being completely stupid is that sections of it are incoherent.” (Yes, I’d like to think I don’t say things like that now)). And “in my opinion” is very rarely useful unless the point being made is that one is a subject matter expert. It also personalizes things unnecessarily in the same way that the 2nd person does, just to a lesser extent.
In my opinion, you are a poor judge of when a reply to Alicorn’s comments will add to a discussion. Your judgment seems to me to be biased strongly in favor of deciding to reply to Alicorn’s comments so as to highlight what you see as their shortcomings, possibly because you wish to lower her status.
It probably appears that way because in all the cases since ~Nov ’09 when I have a substantive reply to an Alicorn comment, I just don’t make it because of this ban. So all the remaining ones you see will be less engaging and productive. Hey—maybe we should lift that ban … oh, wait.
Therefore, if your primary desire is to discuss general issues that Alicorn also contributes to, you should take great pains to make it clear that you are not attempting to interact with Alicorn, much less disparage her.
I feel I have already demonstrated mastery of this in such comments as these. I don’t see how any reasonable person would find those offensive, even as they violate your extensive standards.
As for your (1) to (4) -- yeah, that’s an inconvenient, ridiculous set of hoops to jump through, which is why I want to get to the root of our disagreement, and eliminate the need to have to walk through a minefield to exchange ideas. Why doesn’t Alicorn want the same? You tell me.
I am not going to vote on or address the content of this post because, in my opinion, it engages in doublespeak and straw-manning. I have a blanket policy of not responding to such tactics on an Internet forum. I am extremely unlikely to make further public comments on the Alicorn-SilasBarta dispute(s).
In my opinion, you are a poor judge of when a reply to Alicorn’s comments will add to a discussion. Your judgment seems to me to be biased strongly in favor of deciding to reply to Alicorn’s comments so as to highlight what you see as their shortcomings, possibly because you wish to lower her status. Thus, what you see as a useful contribution might be seen by others as the latest in a series of unwarranted snarky put-downs.
Therefore, if your primary desire is to discuss general issues that Alicorn also contributes to, you should take great pains to make it clear that you are not attempting to interact with Alicorn, much less disparage her. Concretely, this means that you would:
(1) not address Alicorn in the second person (2) not state or imply that Alicorn’s posts are worthless or nearly worthless (3) not ask, directly or indirectly, what Alicorn’s opinion on a subject is
but would instead
(4) make assertions about an abstract topic, using the third person (5) use polite phrases like “no offense,” “nothing personal,” or “in my opinion” (6) ask for the opinion of other LW commenters in general or for the opinion of specific named LWers who you get along with.
Minor note- the phrases “nothing personal” and “no offense” can often have the exact opposite of the intended result. Tthey can come across as condescending and very often when people use them they really are trying to be offensive, although they may not realize it. (A relevant quote from me from about 10 years ago “No offense, but the only thing saving that argument from being completely stupid is that sections of it are incoherent.” (Yes, I’d like to think I don’t say things like that now)). And “in my opinion” is very rarely useful unless the point being made is that one is a subject matter expert. It also personalizes things unnecessarily in the same way that the 2nd person does, just to a lesser extent.
It probably appears that way because in all the cases since ~Nov ’09 when I have a substantive reply to an Alicorn comment, I just don’t make it because of this ban. So all the remaining ones you see will be less engaging and productive. Hey—maybe we should lift that ban … oh, wait.
I feel I have already demonstrated mastery of this in such comments as these. I don’t see how any reasonable person would find those offensive, even as they violate your extensive standards.
As for your (1) to (4) -- yeah, that’s an inconvenient, ridiculous set of hoops to jump through, which is why I want to get to the root of our disagreement, and eliminate the need to have to walk through a minefield to exchange ideas. Why doesn’t Alicorn want the same? You tell me.
I am not going to vote on or address the content of this post because, in my opinion, it engages in doublespeak and straw-manning. I have a blanket policy of not responding to such tactics on an Internet forum. I am extremely unlikely to make further public comments on the Alicorn-SilasBarta dispute(s).