Something is rotten in the channel of Slack
post by Medarla · 2018-05-10T16:19:55.764Z · LW · GW · 12 commentsFacts:
1. A few days ago I had a kind of a clash with one guy in the Lesswrong Slack channel; that guy went aggressive and started calling me names.
2. The moderator (eliot) stepped in and started blaming me for "adversarial and non-collaborative behavior"
3. After that both guys seemed to hold a grudge against me and tried to criticize whatever I wrote on every occasion, no matter how made up their criticism was
4. Some more days later, my account in Slack is banned with no warning
And after all this, I feel extremely disappointed. This is not how rational discussions should be conducted.
12 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Viliam · 2018-05-11T23:39:37.870Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Uhm...
So you wrote how you perceive some recent conflict on Slack. I wasn't there. You don't provide quotes or anything specific. All I know is that you are angry and blame other people. What specific reaction did you expect here, and why?
Just saying that from a perspective of a person who wasn't there, Elo's description sounds much more plausible. Like, "not being specific and not being clear" matches what I see here. Anyway...
Considering that this is your first contribution on LW (the website), you just wasted an opportunity to make a good (or even neutral) first impression.
However, if you just make a new account and try again (on this website, not Slack), I believe no one would bother checking whether it is the same person or not, so if you are actually interested in talking about rationality, this is an option.
comment by Elo · 2018-05-10T18:50:44.812Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thank you. Your comments are noted.
The slack is a private group and there is some cultural fit needed for a gated community. This was at least the third flare up with you and I addressed each one when they happened. I received pressure for not being more strict.
Highlights:
- not being specific and not being clear
- occasionally appending "only an idiot would say that" to your statements
- trying to ask manipulative questions as a gotcha to catch me out. I refused to answer without being specific and I repeated the question so that I could not be caught saying two things that were similar (and close) but different.
- Taking offense at me refusing to be manipulated by vague questions and trying to tell me off.
- talking about identity politics and pushing an agenda. And explicitly stating so. Then telling me I was wrong to not be pushing an agenda (I was sitting on fences)
- not being willing to read parts of the sequences that were directly linked to explain what was going wrong with the discussion when we had different priors and could not find a starting point.
If you can change all these and be collaborative to truth seeking, you can come back in a year. Just pm me. Until then you can learn in other forums all over the internet.
I don't owe you this explanation but I give this freely.
comment by Medarla · 2018-05-10T20:14:40.074Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
occasionally appending "only an idiot would say that" to your statements
Well, this is just a lie. Other points are misleading or outright made up too, but this one is particularly blatant.
On the other hand, jollybard call me a jerk and an idiot for a few times, and you paid zero attention to it.
But who cares, right? Long live the echo-chamber.
Replies from: Elo↑ comment by Elo · 2018-05-10T20:18:07.142Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
amen
Replies from: Medarla↑ comment by Medarla · 2018-05-10T20:25:00.829Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Well, I don't have any idea what to do with the guy who just lies into my face. Especially when he got the power to ban me just because he feels like that.
Apparently, lesswrong.com is not a place for any discussions.
Replies from: Elo↑ comment by Elo · 2018-05-10T20:50:54.603Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I told you what to do. Go find somewhere else to talk to people. Come back when you have some humility|curiosity about your own knowledge.
Replies from: Medarla↑ comment by Medarla · 2018-05-10T21:16:34.730Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Courtier's response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
Replies from: Elo↑ comment by Elo · 2018-05-10T21:45:14.513Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The Courtier's Reply is an alleged type of logical fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever.[1] It may be considered a form of argument from authority.
And? I think established by the fact that I am in charge, I am the authority of the slack. So yes. I can make decisions about what makes my garden a nice garden. It's significantly less of a fallacy if I am actually the authority here.
I've been courteous by responding here but I really don't have to - Tapping out.
Replies from: Medarla↑ comment by Medarla · 2018-05-10T22:18:40.313Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Appeal to the authority is a bad, invalid argument. However, it doesn't look like you give a flying duck for good argumentation at all.
So far, your "garden" looks like an extremely toxic place that has nothing to do with rational thinking. I definitely don't mind that you do whatever you want with your personal channel, just don't use this misleading title. It's a not channel about rationality, it's one certain guy's personal fan club.
And by the way, I remember you wrote that you don't ban people often. Now I think that you lied about this too.
Replies from: Elo