This reads to me like an indirect public airing of grievances related to some drama we have insufficient context for, at least without investigating other threads. Without this context, the post is ungrounded, difficult to make sense of, and reads to me as personally-motivated meta-level slop.
I don’t think this deserves front page status as I didn’t find anything useful, relevant, or timeless in it, much less all three.
(Frontpage is not a quality filter, it’s a topic filter. The topic is clearly timeless, and while I agree some interpretations could be too inside-baseball-y, the post is clearly at least aspiring to broader relevance.
In general, bar a fairly small set of exceptions, I think the LW habit of taking local grievances and trying to abstract the disagreement into general principles using non-politicized examples is a good one, and I would like people to keep doing it)
I’m sorry you didn’t like the post. (Please downvote if you haven’t already.) Maybe the following brief summary will help clarify what I was trying to get at, since the post as written didn’t work for you or Cole?
There’s a famous Tumblr quote complaining about situations where people strategically conflate two meanings of “respect”: saying, if you don’t “respect” me (meaning, defer to me when I claim to know something), then I won’t “respect” you (meaning, I can mistreat you). This results in conflict.
I’m saying there can also be other situations where rather than one person using two definitions of “respect” inconsistently, two people are using different definitions, with each of them being consistent in their own usage. One person thinks that “respect” means that people should defer to each other when the other person claims to know something, and the other doesn’t think that “respect” entails that, and that results in conflict.
(End summary.)
Maybe you don’t think that’s interesting, but a lot of people shared that Tumblr quote, so presumably someone is interested in this kind of social theorizing?
In retrospect, this post was not my best work. (In particular, I’m embarrassed that I misunderstood the intent of the quote that I used in the title.) I guess that’s the way it goes sometimes. (I try to write good posts and not publish bad posts, but sometimes I don’t notice that a post is bad before seeing how it lands in the comment section.)
This reads to me like an indirect public airing of grievances related to some drama we have insufficient context for, at least without investigating other threads. Without this context, the post is ungrounded, difficult to make sense of, and reads to me as personally-motivated meta-level slop.
I don’t think this deserves front page status as I didn’t find anything useful, relevant, or timeless in it, much less all three.
(Frontpage is not a quality filter, it’s a topic filter. The topic is clearly timeless, and while I agree some interpretations could be too inside-baseball-y, the post is clearly at least aspiring to broader relevance.
In general, bar a fairly small set of exceptions, I think the LW habit of taking local grievances and trying to abstract the disagreement into general principles using non-politicized examples is a good one, and I would like people to keep doing it)
I’m sorry you didn’t like the post. (Please downvote if you haven’t already.) Maybe the following brief summary will help clarify what I was trying to get at, since the post as written didn’t work for you or Cole?
There’s a famous Tumblr quote complaining about situations where people strategically conflate two meanings of “respect”: saying, if you don’t “respect” me (meaning, defer to me when I claim to know something), then I won’t “respect” you (meaning, I can mistreat you). This results in conflict.
I’m saying there can also be other situations where rather than one person using two definitions of “respect” inconsistently, two people are using different definitions, with each of them being consistent in their own usage. One person thinks that “respect” means that people should defer to each other when the other person claims to know something, and the other doesn’t think that “respect” entails that, and that results in conflict.
(End summary.)
Maybe you don’t think that’s interesting, but a lot of people shared that Tumblr quote, so presumably someone is interested in this kind of social theorizing?
In retrospect, this post was not my best work. (In particular, I’m embarrassed that I misunderstood the intent of the quote that I used in the title.) I guess that’s the way it goes sometimes. (I try to write good posts and not publish bad posts, but sometimes I don’t notice that a post is bad before seeing how it lands in the comment section.)
Yeah the first paragraph or so was interesting, the lesswrong related examples were just too high context.
I understood your the point you just summarized, just not how it fits into the broader picture that precipitated this post.
Yeah I don’t understand what’s happening here at all.