r/SneerClub archives
newest
bestest
longest
0

It feels like a lot of the posts on this sub are dishonest in some way. A few examples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/gxoevn/when_its_not_about_black_lives_shes_on_board/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

The title is just a strait up lie about what she’s saying. She’s not saying that she doesn’t care about black lives, like the title implies. She’s saying that she objects to identity politics and viewing the discussion of police violence through a racial lens. Maybe she’s wrong. Maybe it should be viewed from a racial lens. That’s a fair criticism. But instead the poster decides to strawman her views.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/pnc46d/any_problem_can_be_solved_by_throwing_money_at_it/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

The title is saying the exact opposite of what he’s saying. He’s claiming that you can’t change politicians by ‘aligning’ them the way you can with AI.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/ozacst/maybe_we_should_sort_of_stigmatize_mental_illness/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Again, more dishonesty in the title. He’s not saying we should stigmatize it, not even “sort of”. He explicitly says so in the second sentence. He’s saying that we shouldn’t stigmatize OR ‘valorize’ it. He thinks we should be neutral towards it, think of them like everybody else.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/oilc12/aella_watching_out_for_oppressed_homophobes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Jesus, this one’s literally got it entirely backwards. She’s pointing out that both homophobes and people who are grossed out by a fetish defend their hatred by saying they’re “gross”. The poster has that correct. But she’s NOT saying that this makes ‘homophobes’ better, she’s saying it makes the people who are grossed out by fetishes just as bad as the homophobes.

Look, there’s plenty of people who pay lip service to rationality while failing to be rational themselves. But lets not lie about their statements to make them seem worse.

This is ‘sneerclub’, not ‘charitably summarise the opposition’s arguments club’

you can go make your own sub if you want to do that

Basically like saying "This is lie and spread misinformation about other people club, not a make accurate statements club". A sub like that should never exist in the first place.
>basically like saying [thing i never said] wow, you're *so good* at this 'accurately characterising other people's positions' thing really gives me faith in your ability to effectively call other people out for intellectual dishonesty although in your case it's not intellectual dishonesty so much as . . . intellectual stupidity? Intellectual lack-of-reading-comprehension?
"intellectual dishonesty" is rationalist jargon for "doesn't buy our line"

Oh, you’re still here trying to refute /r/SneerClub or whatever.

>trying to refute \*successfully refuted The sub is dishonest and immoral, and should either shape up or stop existing.
Nah, just less enthusiastically gullible than yourself for this style of pseudo-rational, centralist-posturing hot takes. > The sub is dishonest and immoral Always love when moralizing comes from a [self-described moral nihilist.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/p4hi86/cmv_humans_ought_to_be_equal_coowners_of_the/h923tjl/) Since you cite Richard Joyce, then you probably agree that your moral judgment is not true, though it might be news to you that nobody here cares about what you want. I anticipate that you're going to repeat yourself at me because you appear to have the time and energy for it.
lmao nerd

hoes mad

For good reason.
truly the most important action you could take today to combat existential risk
nah

look at this extremely offended dork

Came here to say this.
His name is u/dgerard
[look at this extremely extremely offended dork](https://www.reddit.com/r/LessWrong/comments/pojrdu/theres_an_entire_subreddit_dedicated_to/)

I’m sorry, but this post was barely half a page long. Obviously, it’s not rational and logical enough for me to interact with.

So, here’s a ts;dr version of my comment:

Which is it this time. Did we use too much context? Too little context? Did we take some fucked up shit at face value even if it was obviously only a joke, at least for now?

Actually, you only think we’re wrong because it confirms your political biases. I encourage you to read a little book called “The Scout Mindset” so you can better understand your error here.

Actually, you only think those posts are sneers because it confirms your political biases. I encourage you to take your own advice.

[deleted]

You want him to get a date? Why do you hate women
[deleted]
Ah but he has been evolutionary primed to be attracted to women whose boobs look like butts [lest we forget](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/x8Fp9NMgDWbuMpizA/rationality-lessons-learned-from-irrational-adventures-in)
holy shit take a look in the mirror. become an honest person. get intellectually honest
[deleted]
how much do you wanna bet that you've spent 10x or more time on this sub than me? >now go outside and lose your virginity Done and done. Now take your own advice.
[deleted]
no don't, you'll get cooties
that's bestiality
no u

Holy shit you are right, these sneerclubbers are evil.

E: hey, wanna earn some Dunning-Krugerrand coins.

The title is just a strait up lie about what she’s saying. She’s not saying that she doesn’t care about black lives

the post doesnt say that? actually, the post seems pretty accurate–she only cares about the issue of police brutality when it’s framed in a way divorced from black lives.

The title is saying the exact opposite of what he’s saying. He’s claiming that you can’t change politicians by ‘aligning’ them the way you can with AI

the post sneers at ppl believing either throwing money at congress (yud) or using ai alignment techniques (reply guy) is the solution to lawmaking. again, seems accurate

He thinks we should be neutral towards it

that’s what “sort of stigmatize” means in the title in context. rn it’s not really valorized, so robot thinking we should stop valorizing is a context clue here

But she’s NOT saying that this makes ‘homophobes’ better

ctrl-f better, 0 results. stop being clueless

the sneerers' secret weapon: actually doing the reading. cruel. depraved. will no one stop them.
>the post doesnt say that? actually, the post seems pretty accurate--she only cares about the issue of police brutality when it's framed in a way divorced from black lives. The post is a lie. It deliberately picks an unfair summary of the statement to make it weaker than it actually is. Language is sometimes ambiguous. That doesn't entitle you to take the worst possible interpretation of what someone says. >the post sneers at ppl believing either throwing money at congress (yud) or using ai alignment techniques (reply guy) is the solution to lawmaking. again, seems accurate The first part is accurate. The second part isn't. If you actually read the post, you'd know he said "aligning ... is almost completely a different problem". Notice the word "different", which, to a person who speaks English would indicate that hes *not* saying it can be aligned. >rn it's not really valorized, so robot thinking we should stop valorizing is a context clue here How is that in any way relevant? Whether we are or aren't valorizing it right now is irrelevant, because a) he may be referring to the possibility of future valorizaiton, or b) he may believe it is valorized. Either would explain how he might want to avoid that. The 'context' is entirely read into it by you. >stop being clueless Take your own advice.
i'm sorry that you're stupid

Strawmen on top of strawmen. 90% of the ‘critiques’ aren’t even problems. This entire sub’s invaders is just rationalists getting butthurt about people thinking critically once in a while rather than repeating the far-right story.

There's nothing far-right about any of these posts, the only way a person could think that is if they were in too deep in leftist ideology.
Look, we're all sympathetic to the fact that you're the product of copulation between your father and your sister, but that doesn't mean you have to adopt an extremist ideology to smooth it over. You're in the company of royals here!
Seems uncharitable to assume father/daughter and not brother/sister. Dark.
Wait, this isn't the crusader kings subreddit, wtf is going on.