you seem to suggest that being rational means ignoring the costs.
I don’t think so. I think I’m suggesting that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that I should bear whatever costs I need to bear, while still staying true to myself.[1] And if you disagree, I would be interested in hearing some counter-opinions on why not.
Is there no way to make the same point in a less annoying way? If there is, what made you choose this one?
Maybe. But one of the points is the annoyance itself as an end. More precisely, do you (and others) perceive annoyance as something to be avoided or necessary cost to be paid in order to achieve truth with rationality? Maybe my post was not a good one in this sense if you think there are ways to make the same point in a less annoying way, but I couldn’t come up with a better post.
Hmm… I understand the dynamics of the community a bit better. I still disagree, but I think we can agree to disagree. If eventually the mods ban me, I will accept that (and maybe complain elsewhere). I think this is a value question, say, do you prefer a community that survives and thrives, or a (perhaps dysfunctional) community that values argumentation, reasoning, and truth (while “corrupting the youth”)? My answer is obviously, and strongly, the latter.
I still see my intention (on bringing annoyance) as a good intent within good faith, but I can also see why many people don’t like that. To this end, since it’s a normative question, not a descriptive one, I don’t think anyone can purely say what is universally right and what is universally wrong. My decision forward is to simply hear everyone out and see which kind of normative values do they have. If my values contradict with the community, then we’re simply incompatible. Neither of us are wrong.
Or if you interpreted the suggestion at the whole community: I do suggest that a rational community should tolerate annoyance (not ignoring the costs, but rather accepting them). My opinion is that any fruitful discussion that can change someone’s mind using reasoning should at least acknowledge that at least one party will be annoyed that their original beliefs are worse than the newer ones. Such annoyance is necessary, should be expected, and should be tolerated.
Technical detail: Hard bans do exist here, but they are relatively rare. What happens usually is that the existing members vote on the quality of your posts and comments, and if you keep accumulating negative score, at some levels various penalties will start to apply, such as limiting the number of comments you can post per day, etc. Getting sufficiently deep will effectively result in a ban; my point is that this doesn’t happen suddenly, but gradually.
If my values contradict with the community, then we’re simply incompatible.
Yeah, different places have different rules. Even “there are no rules” is a possible choice, and there may be places out there that approach this ideal, although I would expect that those which get too close to it end up full of spam (because “don’t post spam” is also a rule).
The dynamics essentially works like this: You want to communicate with other people. (If you don’t, you might as well install a web forum on your own computer, and you get 100% free speech and 0% rules, but also no audience.) But the other people are free to leave, if they get annoyed. And although the relation is not perfect, the people who produce better content often put stricter limits on how annoying is too annoying for them… simply because they have many less annoying alternatives available, such as publishing on their own Substack. Yes, those authors want an audience too, but they can easily get it anywhere else; if they produce sufficiently good content, the audience will follow them.
The community is what it is in part of because of the rules it has. If it had different rules, it would have different members (because some of the original ones would leave, and maybe start a new community somewhere else). It is a mistake to imagine the same community, only with different rules—that would only work for a short time.
Being annoying has a cost, and you seem to suggest that being rational means ignoring the costs.
Is there no way to make the same point in a less annoying way? If there is, what made you choose this one?
Probably yes?
I don’t think so. I think I’m suggesting that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that I should bear whatever costs I need to bear, while still staying true to myself.[1] And if you disagree, I would be interested in hearing some counter-opinions on why not.
Maybe. But one of the points is the annoyance itself as an end. More precisely, do you (and others) perceive annoyance as something to be avoided or necessary cost to be paid in order to achieve truth with rationality? Maybe my post was not a good one in this sense if you think there are ways to make the same point in a less annoying way, but I couldn’t come up with a better post.
Hmm… I understand the dynamics of the community a bit better. I still disagree, but I think we can agree to disagree. If eventually the mods ban me, I will accept that (and maybe complain elsewhere). I think this is a value question, say, do you prefer a community that survives and thrives, or a (perhaps dysfunctional) community that values argumentation, reasoning, and truth (while “corrupting the youth”)? My answer is obviously, and strongly, the latter.
I still see my intention (on bringing annoyance) as a good intent within good faith, but I can also see why many people don’t like that. To this end, since it’s a normative question, not a descriptive one, I don’t think anyone can purely say what is universally right and what is universally wrong. My decision forward is to simply hear everyone out and see which kind of normative values do they have. If my values contradict with the community, then we’re simply incompatible. Neither of us are wrong.
Or if you interpreted the suggestion at the whole community: I do suggest that a rational community should tolerate annoyance (not ignoring the costs, but rather accepting them). My opinion is that any fruitful discussion that can change someone’s mind using reasoning should at least acknowledge that at least one party will be annoyed that their original beliefs are worse than the newer ones. Such annoyance is necessary, should be expected, and should be tolerated.
Technical detail: Hard bans do exist here, but they are relatively rare. What happens usually is that the existing members vote on the quality of your posts and comments, and if you keep accumulating negative score, at some levels various penalties will start to apply, such as limiting the number of comments you can post per day, etc. Getting sufficiently deep will effectively result in a ban; my point is that this doesn’t happen suddenly, but gradually.
Yeah, different places have different rules. Even “there are no rules” is a possible choice, and there may be places out there that approach this ideal, although I would expect that those which get too close to it end up full of spam (because “don’t post spam” is also a rule).
The dynamics essentially works like this: You want to communicate with other people. (If you don’t, you might as well install a web forum on your own computer, and you get 100% free speech and 0% rules, but also no audience.) But the other people are free to leave, if they get annoyed. And although the relation is not perfect, the people who produce better content often put stricter limits on how annoying is too annoying for them… simply because they have many less annoying alternatives available, such as publishing on their own Substack. Yes, those authors want an audience too, but they can easily get it anywhere else; if they produce sufficiently good content, the audience will follow them.
The community is what it is in part of because of the rules it has. If it had different rules, it would have different members (because some of the original ones would leave, and maybe start a new community somewhere else). It is a mistake to imagine the same community, only with different rules—that would only work for a short time.