As the poster of this original article, i’d like to thank people here
for calling out what they believe is my mischaracterization of the
criticism leveled at the culture war. My only goal is to promote better
discussion between truth seeking actors, and it’s possible in this case
that i mischaracterized the nature of criticism against a community i’m
not part of.
I’m sure if there are a bunch of people in this thread criticising
slate star codex (or the culture war), or any other group, that
most of the people leveling these criticisms believe their
characterizations of the group are accurate, and see me as having set of
up awful straw man. I’m sorry for having done that. My goal wasn’t to
attack your tribe or to defend theirs.
It’s very difficult to be honest and truthful when emotions are high,
and promoting more accurate reasonable discussion is something i care
very much about.
Feel free to search my comment history. I don’t know much about the
culture war thread. I have posted in ssc a few times, but i don’t think
i’ve ever posted in the comment thread.
I know very little about your community. I don’t feel a strong belief
in defending or attacking any community.
If you think i’ve been mischaracterizing your criticism of some other
community i’m not part of, then i presume you’d like other members of
your community not to waste their time talking to me. And in that case,
we share the same goal - to help prevent ridiculous conversations of
wasted words between people who are just going to talk past each
other.
The reason your idea scares me is that claiming something is false is itself a claim that can be false, or worse, it can be true from one perspective and false from another. Someone for example could make the claim that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, and then someone else could tag that as a lie because they think Bush did 9/11.
>For example, if 10 people i trust say "this specific claim is false", i can filter out that claim and reduce intensity of signal on all futures claims made by that source.
If those 10 people you trust happened to all be people who said Bush did 9/11, then the result of your system would be to filter out legitimate news in favor of conspiracy theories.
You've also got the problem of people who are just wrong, but get labelled as liars. For example if someone said "Jussie Smollett was the victim of a hate crime," or "Donald Trump colluded with Russia," and an investigation reveals that to be untrue, then does it help their credibility at all that they said it when it seemed true at the time and when they really believed it?
There are so many implementation issues that I don't think your system could actually exist without doing more harm than good. And I'm concerned that you seem to be taking Scott Alexander's word as true and ours as false, when it's a much more complicated disagreement than that, and we could spend a long time just discussing that subject. I may have judged you wrong though, you seem more like a bystander who's only heard one side of the story, rather than a partisan for the other team.
> The reason your idea scares me is that claiming something is false is itself a claim that can be false
Yes! This is exactly the point of the system. That second metaclaim should also be something people can claim is false or incorrect or exaggerated, or contradicts a different claim.
> Someone for example could make the claim that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11, and then someone else could tag that as a lie because they think Bush did 9/11.
People already do this today. I'd prefer not to talk to those people. I'm guessing you would as well. Ideally we could have signal on this, so that anyone who goes around making "reasoned arguments in defense of pedophelia", i can just not spend my time talking to.
> And I'm concerned that you seem to be taking Scott Alexander's word as true and ours as false,
I think i might have been doing that. I'm sorry for that. I don't have the time to investigate who's right or wrong in this, and I shouldn't trust someone simply because they are more proximal to me in the graph. It's better for me to say, truthfully, "I don't really know." Thank you for pointing this out.
No one here has any reason to believe you're speaking in good faith, especially since you're blatantly lying about group membership. In fact, we have every reason to believe you aren't.
You're all painfully bad actors, by the way. I'm not sure whether you're intentionally bullshitting or if you actually believe your own charade about being neutral and not biased towards one group, but either way, it's not convincing.
Anyway back to sneering: your first mistake was treating ssc as "truth-seeking."
Hmm.
As the poster of this original article, i’d like to thank people here for calling out what they believe is my mischaracterization of the criticism leveled at the culture war. My only goal is to promote better discussion between truth seeking actors, and it’s possible in this case that i mischaracterized the nature of criticism against a community i’m not part of.
I’m sure if there are a bunch of people in this thread criticising slate star codex (or the culture war), or any other group, that most of the people leveling these criticisms believe their characterizations of the group are accurate, and see me as having set of up awful straw man. I’m sorry for having done that. My goal wasn’t to attack your tribe or to defend theirs.
It’s very difficult to be honest and truthful when emotions are high, and promoting more accurate reasonable discussion is something i care very much about.
Feel free to search my comment history. I don’t know much about the culture war thread. I have posted in ssc a few times, but i don’t think i’ve ever posted in the comment thread.
I know very little about your community. I don’t feel a strong belief in defending or attacking any community.
If you think i’ve been mischaracterizing your criticism of some other community i’m not part of, then i presume you’d like other members of your community not to waste their time talking to me. And in that case, we share the same goal - to help prevent ridiculous conversations of wasted words between people who are just going to talk past each other.