911–920 of 952 posts
http://www.demon-sushi.com/warning/
But with deadly consequences in the Zizians' case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it's a pretty serious accusation, and it's false, so just throwing it around like that is not cool.
I wish I could live in a world as simple as yours.
Because trust me, this is not simple at all, and since you think it is, it just means you don't know anything about it.
This is understandable, a lot of people don't. But you should avoid posting about it, there are some VERY motivated people who post about this in every thread, and downvote, and flag. Don't be one of them, they are motivated by hate, and that's not a good place to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or David Hume, 300 years ago: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions"
To be fair it did work out suprisingly well in the early days, even the really weird comment chains attracted only a small minority of the bizarrely deranged. Probably because back then the median LW commentator was noticeably smarter than the median HN commentator. Pascal’s mugging was even coined there I believe, but then as it grew… whatever communal anti-derangement protections existed gradually declined. And it…
The rationalist community have some of the smartest people and the best blogs, and they think through things much more thoroughly and are much less prone to biases and fallacies than most online communities.
Most of the news coverage I've seen of this story is omitting what some might consider a relevant detail: almost all the members of this group are trans. This is a divisive topic, but failing to mention this makes me worry a story is pushing a particular agenda rather than trying to tell the facts. Here's what the story looks like if the trans activism is considered central to the story: https://thepostmillennial.com…
I don't know, seems like if we're trying to do that kind of targeting, LessWrong is the better place to start. 100% of these people are LessWrong people, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re disputing that major religions ever hold deeply implausible claims as an article of faith? Really? I mean, if they didn’t, then they probably would be religions, just “stuff everyone believes or has reasoned discussions about”. Spoiler: they can’t all be right.
I was trying to understand what you meant by “insane”, but you already moved the goalposts to “implausible”, so it’s not clear to me that you even know what you’re claiming. However, if I were to take a guess, it’s something like “people sometimes believe things without proof”. But obviously this is not true only of religious people, other people have their own creation stories – the sole difference is their’s don’t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s just Culture War terms. And identification according to others (illiberal this or that) is often agenda-driven. Self-identification is confused enough but identifying others is even more muddled.
> Culture War terms Sure. The Culture War’s belligerents are all , generally speaking, illiberal. And notably, most people steeped in it reject the term. Even those on the left.
What are they supposed to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They have, in the past, responded to criticism with statements to the effect of "anyone who would criticize us for any reason is a bad person who is lying to cause us harm". Which leader said anything like that? Certainly not Eliezer or the leader of the Center for Applied Rationality (Anna Salamon) or the project lead of the web site lesswrong.com (Oliver Habryka)!
Hello, can confirm, criticism is like the bread and butter of LW, lol. I have very extensively criticized tons of people in the extend rationality ecosystem, and I have also never seen anyone in any leadership position react with anything like this quote. Seems totally made up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They have, in the past, responded to criticism with statements to the effect of "anyone who would criticize us for any reason is a bad person who is lying to cause us harm". Which leader said anything like that? Certainly not Eliezer or the leader of the Center for Applied Rationality (Anna Salamon) or the project lead of the web site lesswrong.com (Oliver Habryka)!
Hello, can confirm, criticism is like the bread and butter of LW, lol. I have very extensively criticized tons of people in the extend rationality ecosystem, and I have also never seen anyone in any leadership position react with anything like this quote. Seems totally made up.
> I feel like it should have been obvious to anyone at this point that anybody who openly hates on this community generally or me personally is probably also a bad person inside and has no ethics* and will hurt you if you trust them and will break rules to do so; but in case it wasn't obvious, consider the point made explicitly.
> (Let not this post be construed as casting aspersions on any of the many, many people who've had honest disagreements with me or us, including loud or heated or long ones, that they conducted by debates about ideas rather than insinuations about people.)
Creepy. But after people argued with Eliezer for a considerable time --he made 11 updates. The result was less shockingly bad:
> There's a certain cluster of behaviors and attitudes, which includes things like "getting excited about opportunities to make fun of furries" or uttering phrases like "group X is a bunch of neckbeards". Notably, this is not the same cluster as "strongly and vocally disagreeing with group X about idea Y". Call the first cluster "frobnitz".
> I feel like it should have been obvious to anyone at this point that anybody who openly frobnitzes me, or even more so frobnitzes this community, or even more so still frobnitzes a genuine cinnamon-roll-grade Level Ten Arch-Bodhisattva like Scott Alexander or Scott Aaronson, probably lacks an internal commitment to ordinary interpersonal ethical injunctions and will hurt you if you trust them and will break rules to do so. But in case it wasn't obvious, consider the point made explicitly. (Subtext: Topher Brennan. Do not provide any link in comments to Topher's publication of private emails, explicitly marked as private, from Scott Alexander.)
If this is the only evidence-- OPs allegation is exaggerated but not 'totally made up'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point! If I could write the comment over again, I'd probably leave out the ex-Googlers. But I thought of another math PhD who was happy to work for Eliezer's institute, Scott Garrabrant. I could probably find more if I did a search of the web.
Math PhDs are also a dime a dozen
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was trying to understand what you meant by “insane”, but you already moved the goalposts to “implausible”, so it’s not clear to me that you even know what you’re claiming. However, if I were to take a guess, it’s something like “people sometimes believe things without proof”. But obviously this is not true only of religious people, other people have their own creation stories – the sole difference is their’s don’t…
I didn't move the goal posts; I just used a slightly different word. No offense, but it's ridiculous (sorry, "insane") that I'm dealing with pushback on the point the point that religious believe things that would be considered insane if not labeled as "religion". "There's an all-powerful being that is behind everything... etc." If you're not willing to give any ground on that, then it's not a productive discussion i…
These are axioms, you cannot derive them, you can only derive from them. Saying “my axioms are rational, yours are ‘insane’!” is frankly childish, and speaks to a deep lack of understanding of the essence of reason.