This is completely inappropriate for Less Wrong. Surely there are many other places on the internet where this would be much better appreciated. I’ve downvoted it because it’s in the wrong place.
I don’t think that is true. My understanding—based on the FAQ, the fact that there is a politics tag with lots of posts, and based off of the impression I get hanging around the community for a while—is that, despite acknowledging that it tends to be a mind-killer, there are no hard rules against discussing it. I think there is some sort of norm/expectation that you factor in the downsides before bringing politics up (example), especially if things drag on in an unproductive way. But if after doing so you still think it is worthwhile, you should proceed.
Note: I appreciate that you posted this comment and upvoted it. I think it is also completely fine to downvote things and explain why you did so. Assuming you are coming from a good place and are at least somewhat reasonable, which I believe that you are.
“Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it’s like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy. ”—Big Yud
I really doubt that people in the comment section will start siding with the RSF or the SAF and turning arguments into soldiers here. To almost all westerners Sudan todays is as distant as “Louis XVI during the French Revolution”.
I’m torn, and didn’t vote. It’s not really what LW focuses on—no real rationality commentary or analysis. Politics is discouraged, but there are plenty of exceptions made.
This is more detailed, well-referenced, and objective-in-tone than the vast majority of somewhat-off-topic political posts.
I don’t want to see much of this on LW, and I don’t want to encourage others that LW is a place to find this topic. But I don’t hate having a small amount of high-quality questionably-relevant-to-LW content.
There’s not direct rationality commentary in the post, but there’s plenty of other posts on LW that also aren’t direct rationality commentary (for example, a large majority of posts here about COVID-19). I think that this post is a good fit because it provides tools for understanding this conflict and others like it, which I didn’t possess before and now somewhat do.
It’s not directly relevant to my life, but that’s fine. I imagine that for some here it might actually be relevant, because of connections through things like effective altruism (maybe it helps grant makers decide where to send funds to aid the Sudanese people?).
This is completely inappropriate for Less Wrong. Surely there are many other places on the internet where this would be much better appreciated. I’ve downvoted it because it’s in the wrong place.
How is this in the wrong place?
I don’t think that is true. My understanding—based on the FAQ, the fact that there is a politics tag with lots of posts, and based off of the impression I get hanging around the community for a while—is that, despite acknowledging that it tends to be a mind-killer, there are no hard rules against discussing it. I think there is some sort of norm/expectation that you factor in the downsides before bringing politics up (example), especially if things drag on in an unproductive way. But if after doing so you still think it is worthwhile, you should proceed.
Note: I appreciate that you posted this comment and upvoted it. I think it is also completely fine to downvote things and explain why you did so. Assuming you are coming from a good place and are at least somewhat reasonable, which I believe that you are.
“Once you know which side you’re on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it’s like stabbing your soldiers in the back—providing aid and comfort to the enemy. ”—Big Yud
I really doubt that people in the comment section will start siding with the RSF or the SAF and turning arguments into soldiers here. To almost all westerners Sudan todays is as distant as “Louis XVI during the French Revolution”.
I’m torn, and didn’t vote. It’s not really what LW focuses on—no real rationality commentary or analysis. Politics is discouraged, but there are plenty of exceptions made.
This is more detailed, well-referenced, and objective-in-tone than the vast majority of somewhat-off-topic political posts.
I don’t want to see much of this on LW, and I don’t want to encourage others that LW is a place to find this topic. But I don’t hate having a small amount of high-quality questionably-relevant-to-LW content.
There’s not direct rationality commentary in the post, but there’s plenty of other posts on LW that also aren’t direct rationality commentary (for example, a large majority of posts here about COVID-19). I think that this post is a good fit because it provides tools for understanding this conflict and others like it, which I didn’t possess before and now somewhat do.
It’s not directly relevant to my life, but that’s fine. I imagine that for some here it might actually be relevant, because of connections through things like effective altruism (maybe it helps grant makers decide where to send funds to aid the Sudanese people?).