3 ms·

The rationalist community[1] has a pattern for this. Make a public post with the title Contra <PersonX> on <Subject PersonX Has Written About>. Write out your d

The rationalist community[1] has a pattern for this. Make a public post with the title Contra <PersonX> on <Subject PersonX Has Written About>. Write out your debate arguments in public, but be generous around the uncertain boundaries of the argument. Invite the original author (or others) to steelman the position: "X is arguing for Y, but that seems to contradict Z. If I've misunderstood, please correct me." Always link to good rebuttals from your original post. From good-natured participants, the dueling blog posts format can be delightful to read. [1] - I first noticed it in Scott Alexander's Slate Star Codex, but I've seen many others use this pattern since.

paulpauper 5y ago
Afik, only Scott any maybe one of two other bloggers does this. It's so rare. Most bloggers write for major publications and do not see incoming traffic stats, nor do they care all that much what others say.
- jimbokun 5y ago
  Andrew Sullivan always publishes dissents responding to his previous arguments on his Substack. And sometimes makes clarifying comments or counter arguments engaging with the criticism. Or sometimes just accepts the correction. It's always one of the best parts of what he publishes.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  I think Freddie does this also. I'd much rather have this kind of back and forth and not have any comments enabled. They are mostly a waste of time and energy. This works even when the authors are using pseudonyms.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    I find the SSC/ACX comments incredibly valuable. I rarely have time to read deeply, but the readership is so broad that usually somebody has detailed inside knowledge of the subject at hand (much like HN). The comments are so constructive that Scott often makes followup posts highlighting insightful comments - especially ones that challenge him. I've given a lot of thought to why it works so well, and I think it boils down to three things: 1. Scott really embodies the "strong opinions, loosely held" philosophy and leads by example. 2. The community is big and diverse enough that it doesn't allow a single dogma to dominate. Everyone is a heretic. 3. The moderation is heavy handed, but emphasizes "be kind to each other" rather than "conform to conventional narratives". It's nice to visit a repository of user-generated content that isn't a cesspool.

paulpauper 5y ago

Afik, only Scott any maybe one of two other bloggers does this. It's so rare. Most bloggers write for major publications and do not see incoming traffic stats, nor do they care all that much what others say.

jimbokun 5y ago
Andrew Sullivan always publishes dissents responding to his previous arguments on his Substack. And sometimes makes clarifying comments or counter arguments engaging with the criticism. Or sometimes just accepts the correction. It's always one of the best parts of what he publishes.
wrycoder 5y ago
I think Freddie does this also. I'd much rather have this kind of back and forth and not have any comments enabled. They are mostly a waste of time and energy. This works even when the authors are using pseudonyms.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  I find the SSC/ACX comments incredibly valuable. I rarely have time to read deeply, but the readership is so broad that usually somebody has detailed inside knowledge of the subject at hand (much like HN). The comments are so constructive that Scott often makes followup posts highlighting insightful comments - especially ones that challenge him. I've given a lot of thought to why it works so well, and I think it boils down to three things: 1. Scott really embodies the "strong opinions, loosely held" philosophy and leads by example. 2. The community is big and diverse enough that it doesn't allow a single dogma to dominate. Everyone is a heretic. 3. The moderation is heavy handed, but emphasizes "be kind to each other" rather than "conform to conventional narratives". It's nice to visit a repository of user-generated content that isn't a cesspool.