This is LessWrong. If you want something gone, argue that it’s false, or link to previous arguments that it’s false, don’t just come kvetching about how you don’t personally like it.
I am more than happy to update in response to evidence, that’s what I want. I write about dating because I want people to tell me what I’m missing. Complaining that this is all vaguely bad somehow is not that.
Wrong argument. If people started posting videos of cats on LessWrong, they would not be “false”, but I’d downvote them just the same. Being false is not the only reason to keep them off LessWrong.
(I did find this post interesting and upvoted it.)
There are adjacent things besides just truth which apply in that case—e.q. arguments that something will not lead to any intellectual progress in any domain, or (in the case of advice posts) arguments that the advice is harmful.
I feel like Davis is making a fine argument (in structure) here. In as much as there was an extended battle to get PUA-adjacent content off of LW, and some kind of consensus formed among long-time contributors to the site that this kind of content is bad to post on LW, then that would be a reasonable thing to bring up. Ideally it would include links to past arguments and discussions about the merits, but it’s at least a pointer.
I am genuinely curious what arguments people have made in the past. I have a whole lot of my own arguments about what kind of content seems good or bad here, and my current guess is stuff like this is fine (and to some degree good because it prevents us becoming a soulless professional space, though there are also attractors for LW to become a pathological contrarian/edgy place, so it’s definitely possible to go wrong here).
It is valid to say something is not topical for lesswrong, or that the focus of lesswrong is shifting in a negative way, so I think the standard that you (John) request is not good. Personally, I would like to see more posts on your research! But I’m guessing that the dating stuff doesnt really take away from that (and for the most part, I just don’t read it).
On LessWrong, if you want to say that something is negative, you should provide a rational argument for why you think something is negative, if you want another person to listen. I do want a LessWrong that’s primarily about rational argumentation, where we might agree what’s rational but where we strive to convince each other with rational arguments.
I disagree, in this very particular case. I was trying to say something similar a day ago and really struggled to come up with a better word.
The point is that the argument is supposed to be about the object-level thing, about whether the object-level claim is true or the object-level advice will have the effects it is claimed to have. The argument is not supposed to be things like “saying this will offend some people” or “you’re a bad person for saying this”. I struggle to come up with a better word or short phrase for that than “rational”; the standard connotations seem basically correct.
I don’t mind the original comment, and think it should exist.
My model is that it’s a kinda of “ultra-strong downvote”, that also appears to the side’s moderators in keeping dating-adjacent topics off of frontpage, as well as discouraging them in general.
I also think you should keep posting whatever you’d like, and we let karma sort out what people see. But I also think the correct number of almost-persuasive comments that are merely ultra-strong downvotes/upvotes is nonzero.
This is LessWrong. If you want something gone, argue that it’s false, or link to previous arguments that it’s false, don’t just come kvetching about how you don’t personally like it.
I am more than happy to update in response to evidence, that’s what I want. I write about dating because I want people to tell me what I’m missing. Complaining that this is all vaguely bad somehow is not that.
Wrong argument. If people started posting videos of cats on LessWrong, they would not be “false”, but I’d downvote them just the same. Being false is not the only reason to keep them off LessWrong.
(I did find this post interesting and upvoted it.)
There are adjacent things besides just truth which apply in that case—e.q. arguments that something will not lead to any intellectual progress in any domain, or (in the case of advice posts) arguments that the advice is harmful.
I feel like Davis is making a fine argument (in structure) here. In as much as there was an extended battle to get PUA-adjacent content off of LW, and some kind of consensus formed among long-time contributors to the site that this kind of content is bad to post on LW, then that would be a reasonable thing to bring up. Ideally it would include links to past arguments and discussions about the merits, but it’s at least a pointer.
I am genuinely curious what arguments people have made in the past. I have a whole lot of my own arguments about what kind of content seems good or bad here, and my current guess is stuff like this is fine (and to some degree good because it prevents us becoming a soulless professional space, though there are also attractors for LW to become a pathological contrarian/edgy place, so it’s definitely possible to go wrong here).
It is valid to say something is not topical for lesswrong, or that the focus of lesswrong is shifting in a negative way, so I think the standard that you (John) request is not good. Personally, I would like to see more posts on your research! But I’m guessing that the dating stuff doesnt really take away from that (and for the most part, I just don’t read it).
On LessWrong, if you want to say that something is negative, you should provide a rational argument for why you think something is negative, if you want another person to listen.
I do want a LessWrong that’s primarily about rational argumentation, where we might agree what’s rational but where we strive to convince each other with rational arguments.
I think that “rational“ is an applause light here.
I disagree, in this very particular case. I was trying to say something similar a day ago and really struggled to come up with a better word.
The point is that the argument is supposed to be about the object-level thing, about whether the object-level claim is true or the object-level advice will have the effects it is claimed to have. The argument is not supposed to be things like “saying this will offend some people” or “you’re a bad person for saying this”. I struggle to come up with a better word or short phrase for that than “rational”; the standard connotations seem basically correct.
I don’t think so in this context. There’s a huge difference between appeal to “I don’t like X” and providing rational arguments.
There are plenty of arguments that might be made in an attempt to convince beyond just trying to shut off conversation with social pressure.
I don’t mind the original comment, and think it should exist.
My model is that it’s a kinda of “ultra-strong downvote”, that also appears to the side’s moderators in keeping dating-adjacent topics off of frontpage, as well as discouraging them in general.
I also think you should keep posting whatever you’d like, and we let karma sort out what people see. But I also think the correct number of almost-persuasive comments that are merely ultra-strong downvotes/upvotes is nonzero.