5 ms·

He pointed to several channels including a twitter account, phone number and email. Are all of these channels equally appropriate ways to pursue civil discourse

by psds2 6y ago

He pointed to several channels including a twitter account, phone number and email. Are all of these channels equally appropriate ways to pursue civil discourse with the appropriate parties? Also, he only asked followers to be polite in parenthesis after this. Parenthesis are used for afterthoughts and explanations that deviate from the main topic. They also generally follow punctuation but the SSC blog post followed with the "be polite" bit after a paragraph break. For these reasons I do believe the "be polite" statement was disingenuous.

waon 6y ago
> He pointed to several channels including a twitter account, phone number and email. Are all of these channels equally appropriate ways to pursue civil discourse with the appropriate parties? Um, yes? How does using any of these methods turn civil discourse into harassment? > Also, he only asked followers to be polite in parenthesis after this That's a real twist. He wouldn't want to sound like he assumes his readers are rude people, would he?
- memexy 6y ago
  His suggestion wasn't civil and I already wrote why so I'm just going to quote the answer I already gave > I don't think his words were polite, in fact I think it was quite the opposite. If I wanted a civil discussion I would not have listed any contact information about anyone. I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". The fact that he didn't do that means he did not have such intentions. There is now evidence for an actual harassment campaign against the journalists. Here is the link and the quote (https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1280663446824996865 https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/128066344682499...) > Community message, pls share around as you like > If you have spoken with C_de M_tz, or if he has reached out to you, since the day that Scott took down Slate Star Codex: there may be something you can do to help > Please feel free to reach out to me by DM and I can fill you in The coded message is referring to the original journalist. I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence and still think the rationalist community isn't acting in bad faith when there is actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign.
  - waon 6y ago
    > I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". That's not a way him to raise objections. You're demanding that he shut up. > His suggestion wasn't civil The fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make any of this true. He didn't make any suggestions to harass anyone. > I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence Your "evidence" is unrelated to Scott himself, and it doesn't show any sort of harassment taking place either.
    - memexy 6y ago
      I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting his blog of his own volition.
      - waon 6y ago
        > I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up? > It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. That’s an explanation of what you’ve been doing all along with the whole “making suggestions” nonsense.
        memexy 6y ago
        Is criticism no longer allowed? Isn't that the foundation of rational debate? I have no opinions on his anonymity. I personally don't care or want to know who he is and wasn't planning on reading the NYT article. I have my own conclusions about SSC and its community that I doubt would be changed by the article and no one here has yet convinced me otherwise or given any compelling evidence to the contrary. I have explained why I used the words that I did. If you have any more points to make then quote me in context and provide an actual rebuttal instead of calling what I wrote "nonsense".

by psds2 6y ago

waon 6y ago

> He pointed to several channels including a twitter account, phone number and email. Are all of these channels equally appropriate ways to pursue civil discourse with the appropriate parties? Um, yes? How does using any of these methods turn civil discourse into harassment? > Also, he only asked followers to be polite in parenthesis after this That's a real twist. He wouldn't want to sound like he assumes his readers are rude people, would he?

memexy 6y ago
His suggestion wasn't civil and I already wrote why so I'm just going to quote the answer I already gave > I don't think his words were polite, in fact I think it was quite the opposite. If I wanted a civil discussion I would not have listed any contact information about anyone. I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". The fact that he didn't do that means he did not have such intentions. There is now evidence for an actual harassment campaign against the journalists. Here is the link and the quote (https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1280663446824996865 https://mobile.twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/128066344682499...) > Community message, pls share around as you like > If you have spoken with C_de M_tz, or if he has reached out to you, since the day that Scott took down Slate Star Codex: there may be something you can do to help > Please feel free to reach out to me by DM and I can fill you in The coded message is referring to the original journalist. I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence and still think the rationalist community isn't acting in bad faith when there is actual evidence on twitter of actual coordination among its members for a harassment campaign.
- waon 6y ago
  > I would have said, "I am archiving the blog until further notice because I need to think about what kind of content should be made publicly available because words have power and it's important to think about what information and inferences we make available to others through those words". That's not a way him to raise objections. You're demanding that he shut up. > His suggestion wasn't civil The fact that you keep repeating this doesn't make any of this true. He didn't make any suggestions to harass anyone. > I don't understand how people can look at all this evidence Your "evidence" is unrelated to Scott himself, and it doesn't show any sort of harassment taking place either.
  - memexy 6y ago
    I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. I stated an opinion and backed it up with reasoning about why I believed what I believed. It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. > You're demanding that he shut up. I did not demand anything. I gave reasons and arguments about what I thought. He silenced himself by deleting his blog, no one demanded that he do so, he took the action of deleting his blog of his own volition.
    - waon 6y ago
      > I did not [demand] that anyone do anything. But you repeatedly criticized him for voicing his objections to being de-anonymized. When asked how he could’ve done so differently, you said that he should’ve wrote about how terrible his blog posts were instead. How is this different from demanding that he shut up? > It's silly to jump from what I actually said to what you inferred. That’s an explanation of what you’ve been doing all along with the whole “making suggestions” nonsense.
      - memexy 6y ago
        Is criticism no longer allowed? Isn't that the foundation of rational debate? I have no opinions on his anonymity. I personally don't care or want to know who he is and wasn't planning on reading the NYT article. I have my own conclusions about SSC and its community that I doubt would be changed by the article and no one here has yet convinced me otherwise or given any compelling evidence to the contrary. I have explained why I used the words that I did. If you have any more points to make then quote me in context and provide an actual rebuttal instead of calling what I wrote "nonsense".