nah, not at my karma level I don’t think—but I feel like this content-free low-information blathering should not be tolerated at a more general level: at least im sure it wasn’t back when i felt this site was useful
As you are aware, your experience is uniquely bad because you are intentionally rude to commenters. For example, in this interaction, a normal person would cite the content of the post that you think is relevant. Inserting artificial typos in your responses, to signal that they’re not worth your time, annoys people because it lowers the quality of discourse on the forum, and it reduces their willingness to engage with your ideas in good faith. I write posts challenging rationalists irregularly and almost never struggle with people commenting without reading them.
i don’t think someone expressing opinions on a post they havent read deserves thoughtful responses—also you might have messed up that causal arrow; usually it points in the same grberal direction as time.
besides, before Oliver’s rant, I had plentiful interesting discussions with people who expressed a range of opinion on the essay (which they had read). I certainly didn’t expect agreement; cogent replies were really enough.
I didn’t comment about the post, I commented about your interaction with @DaemonicSigil, which I had sufficient context for.
You have the personal power to ban users on your posts.
Kay
nah, not at my karma level I don’t think—but I feel like this content-free low-information blathering should not be tolerated at a more general level: at least im sure it wasn’t back when i felt this site was useful
As you are aware, your experience is uniquely bad because you are intentionally rude to commenters. For example, in this interaction, a normal person would cite the content of the post that you think is relevant. Inserting artificial typos in your responses, to signal that they’re not worth your time, annoys people because it lowers the quality of discourse on the forum, and it reduces their willingness to engage with your ideas in good faith. I write posts challenging rationalists irregularly and almost never struggle with people commenting without reading them.
i don’t think someone expressing opinions on a post they havent read deserves thoughtful responses—also you might have messed up that causal arrow; usually it points in the same grberal direction as time.
besides, before Oliver’s rant, I had plentiful interesting discussions with people who expressed a range of opinion on the essay (which they had read). I certainly didn’t expect agreement; cogent replies were really enough.