brah you said you had no intention to read the post. how about you go discuss something you are actsully qualified to discuss? You risk looking a bit like a resentful retard otherwise, and i doubt anyone is the better for your contribution
I don’t understand what gives you the authority to comment on a post you didn’t read, and I feel the quality on this site really took a nosedive if thus sort of inchoate shrieking is tolerated. But hey, I understand you might have a gnawing resentment and nothing better to do to placate it, and I have infinite empathy for the smallest of creatures. May you find peace.
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.
brah you said you had no intention to read the post. how about you go discuss something you are actsully qualified to discuss? You risk looking a bit like a resentful retard otherwise, and i doubt anyone is the better for your contribution
I am confident there is nothing in the post that would provide meaningfully important context, or else you would have cited it.
I don’t understand what gives you the authority to comment on a post you didn’t read, and I feel the quality on this site really took a nosedive if thus sort of inchoate shrieking is tolerated. But hey, I understand you might have a gnawing resentment and nothing better to do to placate it, and I have infinite empathy for the smallest of creatures. May you find peace.
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.