4 ms·

acqq didn't say anything about racism, sexism or homophobia. They mentioned guns. I feel like you've taken the conversation as: acqq anti-ESR, myself pro-ESR;

by philh 10y ago

acqq didn't say anything about racism, sexism or homophobia. They mentioned guns. I feel like you've taken the conversation as: acqq anti-ESR, myself pro-ESR; and now you're jumping in on the anti-ESR side again, in accordance with how these things always happen. But no, I'm not defending ESR. I'm saying that acqq's attack on ESR was uncool for reasons that have nothing to do with ESR. Launching a totally unrelated attack on ESR is beside the point.

pvg 10y ago
No, my point was it's very, very easy to come away with the impression that ESR is a complete nutjob and he's developed a well-deserved reputation for being one. Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane but that's not even a fraction of the tenth of it. The record is extensive so whenever you run across someone who thinks ESR is bananas, I think it's pretty safe to assume they're familiar with it and are simply picking some issue they feel is particularly striking to them. 'I feel this person is an extremist so I wouldn't want to work with them' is not an unreasonable or 'uncool' position.
- philh 10y ago
  > Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane It's not that. I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. If someone has other objections to ESR, which are relevant, then they're free to bring one or more of them up. If there are a lot of relevant objections, that should be easy to do. I'm not interested in saying: that particular objection was irrelevant, but there are so many relevant objections that it doesn't matter.
  - pvg 10y ago
    I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. I'm quite sure they don't. They have some opinion which you apparently don't share. Fair enough. But that's basically it, they don't really owe you a defense of that opinion to some standard you define.
  - acqq 10y ago
    > his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? Can you explicitly quote my words? I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). As others also commented here, the page I've linked to, written by ESR, does speak about ESR's personality, directly related to his vision of his own importance, his communication skills ("I am not in fact crazy" in the third sentence) and his perception of those not agreeing with him ("idiots"), and, as I've read his more recent statement "I shot ntpdc through the head" it surely made me think of that page that he proudly maintains again. P.S. To philh: your own words, again: "his [ESR's] views on guns are not relevant; or if someone [here in the context, acqq] wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim." It turns out "if X than Y" had X that was invented and false. P.S.S philh, have you ever known anything about ESR before or were all your responses triggered only by a link to the ESR's "I am a gun nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots" page which somehow you understood as an attack to your own gun beliefs, even if the link was in another context? Would you respond the same to somebody's else page which starts, approximately, "I'm a free speech nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots"? I claim not, I claim your responses reflect your own issues. Now you finally accept: "You [acqq} linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves." And the way you made all of your responses doesn't match with your mission statement "being charitable towards people I disagree with; and not mouthing off about things I don't understand." You didn't understand, you saw "it's a page about guns" and attacked. The reason: you saw that as an "insult" to you. Completely not understanding. You write now: "I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed." Sure. It hurts. Have you read the first paragraph of his page before you responded so many times? Haven't you noticed anything there? Also, have you noticed that you "analyzed" my intentions making wrong conclusions in all your responses?
    - philh 10y ago
      > Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? You linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves. If you thought the relevant thing was something other than his views on guns, then okay: instead of defending a claim you don't believe, you need to make clear what you are claiming. I claim that you were either communicating poorly, or deliberately hiding behind ambiguity. > I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed.
kbenson 10y ago
I actually followed the gun link and read the first paragraph or so, and regardless of what acqq was trying to accomplish or infer with that link, I think those first few paragraphs are informative in a way that his specific views on firearm ownership are not. Specifically, his choice to purposefully refer to himself as a "gun nut" because he thinks people see he's not "crazy" and it thus "discredits the idiots" flies in the face of the many people here saying he does seem a bit eccentric, if not "crazy". I'm left believing he's exceptionally poor at interpreting people's opinions and motivations (which might well explain some of the behavior referenced). So, regardless for the reason for the inclusion of that link, I did find it somewhat illuminating.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  So, because he expresses very little patience for repeated arguments about a public policy debate that's been going on for decades before he was born, your conclusion is that he must have some sort of defect in understanding other people? Like, some sort of autism spectrum disorder? Perhaps he has no problem interpreting other people's opinions. Maybe he's just tired of dealing with polite sounding condescension from people who don't agree with him. Holding views that other people dismiss out of hand with implied "you'd agree with me if you didn't have aspergers" style ad hominem arguments for years tends to make them bitter.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > So, because he expresses very little patience for repeated arguments Little patience is not the same thing as leaning into misconceptions. > Perhaps he has no problem interpreting other people's opinions. Maybe he's just tired of dealing with polite sounding condescension from people who don't agree with him. That's entirely possible, but it then means his proffered explanation is a post-hoc justification for trying to push people's buttons and creating discord rather than understanding. That's his prerogative, but I have little patience for people that create misunderstandings and chaos on purpose, regardless of whether they feel justified.

by philh 10y ago

pvg 10y ago

No, my point was it's very, very easy to come away with the impression that ESR is a complete nutjob and he's developed a well-deserved reputation for being one. Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane but that's not even a fraction of the tenth of it. The record is extensive so whenever you run across someone who thinks ESR is bananas, I think it's pretty safe to assume they're familiar with it and are simply picking some issue they feel is particularly striking to them. 'I feel this person is an extremist so I wouldn't want to work with them' is not an unreasonable or 'uncool' position.

philh 10y ago
> Maybe you think his views on guns are perfectly sane It's not that. I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. If someone has other objections to ESR, which are relevant, then they're free to bring one or more of them up. If there are a lot of relevant objections, that should be easy to do. I'm not interested in saying: that particular objection was irrelevant, but there are so many relevant objections that it doesn't matter.
- pvg 10y ago
  I think his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. I'm quite sure they don't. They have some opinion which you apparently don't share. Fair enough. But that's basically it, they don't really owe you a defense of that opinion to some standard you define.
- acqq 10y ago
  > his views on guns are not relevant; or if someone wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim. Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? Can you explicitly quote my words? I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). As others also commented here, the page I've linked to, written by ESR, does speak about ESR's personality, directly related to his vision of his own importance, his communication skills ("I am not in fact crazy" in the third sentence) and his perception of those not agreeing with him ("idiots"), and, as I've read his more recent statement "I shot ntpdc through the head" it surely made me think of that page that he proudly maintains again. P.S. To philh: your own words, again: "his [ESR's] views on guns are not relevant; or if someone [here in the context, acqq] wants to claim that they're relevant, they need to defend that claim." It turns out "if X than Y" had X that was invented and false. P.S.S philh, have you ever known anything about ESR before or were all your responses triggered only by a link to the ESR's "I am a gun nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots" page which somehow you understood as an attack to your own gun beliefs, even if the link was in another context? Would you respond the same to somebody's else page which starts, approximately, "I'm a free speech nut, I am not in fact crazy, you idiots"? I claim not, I claim your responses reflect your own issues. Now you finally accept: "You [acqq} linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves." And the way you made all of your responses doesn't match with your mission statement "being charitable towards people I disagree with; and not mouthing off about things I don't understand." You didn't understand, you saw "it's a page about guns" and attacked. The reason: you saw that as an "insult" to you. Completely not understanding. You write now: "I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed." Sure. It hurts. Have you read the first paragraph of his page before you responded so many times? Haven't you noticed anything there? Also, have you noticed that you "analyzed" my intentions making wrong conclusions in all your responses?
  - philh 10y ago
    > Is there any place where I claim that "his views on guns" are relevant? You linked to his page on guns, with no further commentary, and then suggested that people inform themselves. If you thought the relevant thing was something other than his views on guns, then okay: instead of defending a claim you don't believe, you need to make clear what you are claiming. I claim that you were either communicating poorly, or deliberately hiding behind ambiguity. > I see all your responses as your own confusion, probably having root in your own worries (and I'm also not surprised that it's hard to admit that). I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed.

kbenson 10y ago

I actually followed the gun link and read the first paragraph or so, and regardless of what acqq was trying to accomplish or infer with that link, I think those first few paragraphs are informative in a way that his specific views on firearm ownership are not. Specifically, his choice to purposefully refer to himself as a "gun nut" because he thinks people see he's not "crazy" and it thus "discredits the idiots" flies in the face of the many people here saying he does seem a bit eccentric, if not "crazy". I'm left believing he's exceptionally poor at interpreting people's opinions and motivations (which might well explain some of the behavior referenced). So, regardless for the reason for the inclusion of that link, I did find it somewhat illuminating.

thehardsphere 10y ago
So, because he expresses very little patience for repeated arguments about a public policy debate that's been going on for decades before he was born, your conclusion is that he must have some sort of defect in understanding other people? Like, some sort of autism spectrum disorder? Perhaps he has no problem interpreting other people's opinions. Maybe he's just tired of dealing with polite sounding condescension from people who don't agree with him. Holding views that other people dismiss out of hand with implied "you'd agree with me if you didn't have aspergers" style ad hominem arguments for years tends to make them bitter.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > So, because he expresses very little patience for repeated arguments Little patience is not the same thing as leaning into misconceptions. > Perhaps he has no problem interpreting other people's opinions. Maybe he's just tired of dealing with polite sounding condescension from people who don't agree with him. That's entirely possible, but it then means his proffered explanation is a post-hoc justification for trying to push people's buttons and creating discord rather than understanding. That's his prerogative, but I have little patience for people that create misunderstandings and chaos on purpose, regardless of whether they feel justified.