3 ms·
No need. It really says a lot about the linked article in question where the best arguments he had for debate were allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles. He
by kadendogthing 8y ago
No need. It really says a lot about the linked article in question where the best arguments he had for debate were allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles.
He seemed kind of angry at other people for bringing it up as a way to demonstrate what he was doing was wrong but then turned around used those topics as an example of why his moderation and general platform were so great. Guess he can just have it both ways because.
It's nothing but pseudo-intellectual masturbation. The idea of meaningful debate is apparently more important than actually meaningfully debating something to people like the author of the article being linked. Anyone who apparently brings attention to the absurdity and uselessness (or sometimes harmfulness) of what he's doing is "just against him" or is just too morally disgusted to actually think about the topics. Which is actually kind of a funny view point when you think about it; he truly believes other people just don't "get it" which is the summary of the entire article.
It's arrogance and foolishness masquerading as an enterprise in advancing knowledge.
- Diederich 8y agoI don't agree with you, and I think your tone is harsher than it should be, but I don't think this comment merits being flagged to [dead].
- kadendogthing 8y agoI mean it was immediately set as [dead]. Not even 30 seconds after posting. Is that characteristic of a moderator action?
- dang 8y agoSoftware did that; your comment triggered a spam filter. Then a user came vouched for it, which is the intended use of vouching. Moderators didn't touch it.
- Diederich 8y agoHow about this one? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=0x54D5 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=0x54D5 (meaning: this isn't a super new account, why is it dead? I think I've been the one vouching for quite a few of the comments)
- yourbandsucks 8y agoPossibly. Can you honestly complain? You're upset that the SSC guy didn't aggressively moderate others, after all, when it wasn't even his job.. maybe there's a lesson here.
- kadendogthing 8y agoNah I don't think a technolibertarian heavy site really has any lessons to offer on moderation or discussion. But you can't really go from [dead] to being able to view the post without moderator intervention in such a sort timespan I would think. It's two separate things. Sorry to confuse the issues. I know some of you desperately want there to be some moralistic lesson here. But it will never happen. And to be perfectly clear, I'm never upset about moderation as long as it can be discussed. So don't get confused with generic talking points that no one is presenting.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoThe lesson is that it's about the quality of viewpoint rather than tribal allegiance. I'm not even libertarian and I'm definitely not technolibertarian. I don't even know what that is, it sounds like "combine how dumb libertarians and tech people are about politics and economics". Get out in your community if you really care. Prove your tolerance and appreciation of diversity by actually mixing with different kinds of people.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoWhat did he 'do' specifically? There was a thread specifically for politics, loosely associated with his name, and he didn't proactively ban enough people who you don't agree with? (If you read the article, he didn't defend any Nazis. He said that he never saw any specifically Nazi content, yet a bunch of people, yourself now included, accused him of enabling it.) Tolerance goes for people you disagree with, too. In fact, it's only actually tolerance when it applies to those you disagree with or don't like.
- finnthehuman 8y ago>It really says a lot about the linked article in question where the best arguments he had for debate were allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles. WTF? Those were not the "best arguments he had for debate," he made it pretty clear that those were in fact his softest targets that his detractors could use to shut down debate. Which they accomplished. I'm not saying I agree with Alexander's position, I usually have a lot of problems with anything he tags "things I will regret writing." But the one thing that's patently obvious about him from his writing, is his commitment to arguing the point even if it means straying into taboo topics that are much more easily avoided. As far as I can tell, that's sorta "the rationalists" _thing_. It's not my thing, but that doesn't mean I don't get what they're going for. To characterize "allowing Nazi view points and pedophiles" as the _point_, rather than _an unfortunate consequence_ is an uncharitable take on their thing.