Nothing about Atlantis and the Source of magic?
Good_Burning_Plastic
Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be upvoted or downvoted separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
Taken.
BTW, in the global warning question I took “significant” to mean “much larger than typical natural variability over the same timescales”. My answer would have been higher if it meant “much larger than measurement uncertainties”, lower if it meant “likely to have negative effects much larger than the cost of averting the warning would have been”, and even lower if it meant “much larger than typical natural variability over any timescales”.
You mean people willing to say things likely to be true even if it isn’t socially acceptable to admit they are.
People holding similar positions to yours but expressing them in much less dickish ways have included, off the top of my head, Konkvistador (whose total karma is 88% positive), nydwracu (91% positive), Vladimir M (93% positive). Nyan Sandwich and Moss Piglet appear to have deleted their accounts, but I don’t recall them being downvoted much either—nor can I recall many people lamenting the presence of any of said commenters.
For comparison, advancedatheist is 59% positive and sam0345 (most likely James Donald) is 53% positive; also eridu, who expressed radical feminist opinions in a way almost as obnoxious as Jim expresses his, has since deleted his account, but IIRC his % positive was also in the mid 50s.
So no, the social acceptability of a statement does not just depend on its factual content.
- 31 Jan 2016 19:59 UTC; 5 points) 's comment on [moderator action] The_Lion and The_Lion2 are banned by (
If “the operator of calculating future-time snapshots is linear”, it’d be very hard for me to consider X = A(S) + R “garbage”.
A: I don’t believe in love. It’s just a bunch of chemical reactions. B: [kicks A in the balls] A: WHYYY??! B: I don’t believe in pain. It’s just a chemical reaction.
It seems very unlikely (< 10%) to me, given they have regularly commented on the same Armed and Dangerous threads for years, with no obvious reason for one person to use two aliases at the same time (also, Eugine has commented on Jim’s blog e.g.).
The Lion started posting “abruptly” with no signs of being a newbie, not very long after VoiceOfRa was banned (much like VoiceOfRa did after Azathoth123 was banned and Azathoth123 did after Eugine Nier was). Also, the first comments of The Lion have been on points that the previous EN incarnations also often made, and their writing styles sound very similar to me.
It’s hard (at least for me—YMMV) to read “can’t get” (emphasis added; as opposed to e.g. “don’t get”) in a way that doesn’t imply the threat of violence (broadly construed) against women who do try to get sexual experience before marriage. Then again, by such standards proposals to e.g. ban a particular drug would also count as advocacy of violence, so probably EY had something less broad in mind.
Looks like Less Wrong limits password lengths to 20 characters, which makes it hard to use “correct horse battery staple”-style password schemes.
Necro-commenting isn’t usually frowned upon around here.
Finished reading Unqualified Reservations through, from “A formalist manifesto” to “Hiatus”. Took me about a year. (Well, actually some of the lengthy Carlyle quotes I just skimmed. And I didn’t read all the comment threads.)
(Also, got my PhD, landed a position as a post-doc starting next month, and played with my rock band in a concert, but those are nothing compared to the UR thing ;-).)
So what?
(EDIT: In case you don’t know,
username2
is an anonymous account that anyone can use, created after some jerk changed the password to theUsername
account formerly used for that purpose.)
The problem with them is that there is no sorting mechanism, so unless I have the time to read several hundred comments I must resort to things like Ctrl-F’ing for the names of certain commenters I particularly like, or going to the most recent comments and hoping that if a discussion has survived this long then it’s probably going to be interesting.
Or in SSCese Eulering
Since we’d rather look at well-dressed people than badly dressed people, good clothes have positive externalities, and should therefore be subsidized. (The main problem with this is who would get to decide which clothes count as “good” for this purpose.)
Okay, now I can see where all the people giving financial reasons why lotteries are bad are coming from.
The argument is quite well received by the very reasonable facebook rationalists crowd. However many rationalists were quite clearly squicked out by the idea of quarantine when applied to lethal diseases ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/l3u/link_the_coming_plague/ ), yet talking about the minor inconvenience of colds suddenly everyone is a utilitarian and is willing to suspend certain supposedly sacred rights.
Are you sure the same individuals are doing those? Muhammad Wang fallacy, and all that.
Huh, lemme do it.
Schelling fence → bright-line rule
Semantic stopsign → thought-terminating cliché
Anti-inductiveness → reverse Tinkerbell effect
“0 and 1 are not probabilities” → Cromwell’s rule
Tapping out → agreeing to disagree (which sometimes confuses LWers when they take the latter literally (see last paragraph of linked comment))
ETA (edited to add) → PS (post scriptum)
That’s off the top of my head, but I think I’ve seen more.