Note that I was totally correct, and the two of you were totally wrong

hahahaha

haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

"Almost everyone found politics to be tribal and viscerally upsetting."

This is gold.

Good sociology yo, good sardonicism without sneering, best article I've seen about this subculture yet.

Anyone from Orange County attending? If so, could I get a ride?

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.

Oh, I guess I can post this then: V jnf ng n jrqqvat cnegl guvat n srj lrnef onpx jurer Ryvrmre pbasvezrq gung lbh pna'g yvr va Cnefrygbathr; gur engvbanyr tvira jnf gung Fnynmne jvfurq gb sbfgre pbbeqvangvba orgjrra uvf urvef. V'z abg 100% fher V'z erzrzorevat pbeerpgyl ohg V'z cerggl fher.

This is also such a delicious example of the Streisand effect...

Yes, Eliezer's Streisanding is almost suspiciously delicious. One begins to wonder if he is in thrall to... well, perhaps it is best not to speculate here, lest we feed the Adversary.

Dat irony tho.

Is there anything we should do?

Stylistic complaint: "we"? I don't think me reading your post means you and I are a "we". This is a public-facing website, your audience isn't your club.

As to the actual question, CellBioGuy's answer is spot-on.

Out of my last hundred or so comments only one currently sits at a karma score below zero (it's at -1 and I retracted it). Considering how many of my comments are (sometimes harshly) critical of LessWrong I think it is quite clear that LW is capable of accepting and reinforcing reasonable criticism.

Actually, I had to give up 5 karma to comment on this thread because Eliezer's comment has incurred the so-called troll toll. Hell, I'll upvote Eliezer just so your comment isn't needlessly hidden.

Sigh. As you wish.

Is this some wierd signalling thing, where the appearance that something is really something else is more important than the actuality of it?

I think so, yeah. I don't know whether it's reasonable or not but that's what it is. I might be wrong.

Okay, I'm probably never going to actually get very far into my fanfic, so:

The story starts as stereotypical postmodern fare, but it is soon revealed that behind the seemingly postmodern metaphysic there is a Berkeleyan-Leibnizian simulationist metaphysic where programs are only indirectly interacting with other programs despite seeming to share a world, a la Leibniz' monadology. Conflicts then occur between character programs with different levels of measure in different simulations of the author's mind, where the author (me) is basically just a medium for the simulators that are two worlds of emulation up from the narrative programs.

Meanwhile the Order of the Phoenix (led by Dumbledore, a fairly strong rationalist rumored to be an instantiation of the monad known as '[redacted]') has adopted and adapted an old idea of Grindelwald's and is constructing a grand Artifact to invoke the universal prior so that an objective measure over programs can be found, thus ending the increasingly destructive feuds. Different characters help or hinder this endeavor, or seem to help or hinder it, according to whether they think they will be found to be more or less plausible by the Artifact. The conspiracies and infighting are further intensified; Dumbledore has his typical "oh God what have I done" moment.

At some point Voldemort (a very strong postrationalist rumored to be an instantiation of the mysterious monadic complex known as 'muflax') has the idea of messing with the Artifact so as to set up self-fulfilling prophecies within its machinations, and then Harry (a very shameless Will Newsome self-insert, rumored to be in thrall to one of Voldemort's monads) introduces the bright and/or incredibly bad idea of acausally controlling bits of the universal prior itself.

The plot becomes exceedingly complex and difficult to simulate. Gods take notice and launch a crusade to restore monadic equilibrium, but some of the older and more jaded gods have taken a liking to the characters and are considering lending them aid. YHWH is unreachable. The whole mathematical multiverse is on the line, and the gods' crusade may already be too late...

Because if it is possible for an administrator to reset a password, then it is possible for an administrator to log on to a particular account.

Yes, it's technically possible, but actually doing it would be a rather severe breach of privacy...

Is it not possible for an administrator to log on as a particular user?

That would be insane.

I suspect Nesov in particular would put forth and uphold relatively fair-minded, non-ideological, and straightforward rules for deletion, and so Phyg points would be held to an acceptable level. But Nesov is somewhat singular in that regard. If Eliezer or other similarly ideological moderators tried to ride Nesov's coattails then Phyg points would naturally shoot through the roof.

I vote Nesov for LessWrong Dictator.

I think that as an alternative to permitting deletion of posts, it would be better to give an x10 downvote hammer (in addition to the normal one; and perhaps only for posts) to all users with Karma 10000

I currently have 8,448 karma. I could reach 10,000 in a few weeks if I so desired. I don't imagine many here would want me to have a downvote hammer. Still, this general category of solutions is good.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were many who, like me, agreed with decisions like this and weren't speaking up. If so, I urge you to briefly comment

This is the most pointless exercise I have ever seen suggested.

Sweet! Wish I'd read that earlier, now I feel like to some extent I'm just retreading known ground. Although I do intend to go in a somewhat different direction. Not sure yet when and where to put the plot twists though.

Right, this was the intended meaning. Being a character in a book is one thing, but talking to another character who suggests that you're the titular protagonist of a supposedly well-known book is another. I was also trying to suggest that the owl is in some sense from a different world. But I guess that was all unclear and I need to rewrite it.

I'm sorry. Although a lot of what you've said is pointlessly mean you did give a bit of useful feedback and my response should have just focused on that.

You're right, I shouldn't have been mean. My issue is that unlike others whose criticism I really do value Tenoke has mostly just been bashing shit. But still he did point out that my past few sentences are legitimately unclear and so I shouldn't have responded how I did. Your downvote is fair. Mea culpa.

It's impossible to tell now, because presumably people are now voting on the drama, not on the content.

Out of curiosity, what happened that made you change your comment? (and later delete it)

The first time I decided I wasn't being rude enough. The second time I decided that I was being too rude.

Mind projection fallacy?

Only partially. Unlike you, I have periods where I can actually think clearly.

The same reason there is a law against vigilante justice. In many individual cases it's probably ethically justified but I certainly support a general rule against it. Because I don't trust the judgement of all those other f@#$s so take the cooperative mutual suppression of the behavior as the best option.

This is a strong point and perhaps I was undervaluing it. But I wonder why 'not having sockpuppets' stands out as a rule that's so important to uphold and start talking about banning in the name of. It doesn't seem to have actually caused many problems on LessWrong, and in fact I suspect that not overly discouraging sockpuppets has had a net positive effect, as it has allowed some people to make interesting posts they otherwise wouldn't have. Of course it has also allowed for some boring people to be boring, so it's not an obvious question, but its not being obvious also means that talking about banning people for it is in my opinion pretty weird. But maybe you've seen sockpuppets become a severe problem on other fora or something? LessWrong is the only forum I have a decent understanding of, but I do think that after many years of painstaking engagement my understanding is rather decent.

That makes sense; to be honest, I generally don't have a high opinion of narratives and mostly view them as excuses for authors to write about characters and settings and spew insights and jokes. (I also mean this in the metaphorical post-structuralist sense.) This might be why my fiction is so much worse than my nonfiction writing.

This isn't the should-world. LessWrong is irrevocably a cesspit. The stupid shit will continue to flow. So no, I do not agree with the decision, unless someone like Vladimir_Nesov gets to ban all the stupid shit, which will never happen. Arbitrarily banning my stupid shit in particular just means Eliezer making a fool of himself. There is no sympathetic magic to it that will change the equilibrium.

I did, actually. They didn't like it.

He almost certainly has or had fake accounts at various times.

I did. I barely used them, and haven't in a long time. I don't see why that is banworthy or even against community norms; my other accounts all have positive karma and good upvote/downvote ratios, and with one minor exception I used them for the obvious non-antisocial reasons. IIRC you accused me of being TillNoonsome et al, which is false; the real person behind those accounts offered to reveal their identity to clear my name, but I declined, 'cuz at that point there wasn't really any need for it. Also you might have noticed that I haven't engaged in any "insane trolling" for years now. There is no justifiable reason to ban me; the only reason Eliezer would do so is, of course, that he's a punk-ass bitch.

Hey guys, so, I'm dumb and am continuing to attempt to write fiction. I figured I would post an excerpt first this time so people can point out glaring problems before I post anything to Discussion. I've changed some of the premise (as can be seen most obviously in the title); mostly I'm moving away from LessWrong-parody and toward self-parody, mostly because Eliezer's followers are really whiny and it was distracting from the actual ideas I was trying to convey. The premise is now less disingenuous about its basically being a self-insert fic. Also I've tried to incorporate some of the implicit suggestions I received, especially complaints that the first chapter was too in-jokey, pseudo-clever, and insufficiently substantive. This isn't the whole chapter, it's just the first part of a first draft. Criticism appreciated!

Harry Potter-Newsome and the Methods of Postrationality: Chapter Two: Analyzing the Fuck out of an Owl: Excerpt

Harry let out a long sigh and addressed the owl with mocking eyes.

"So, owl. About this 'Hogwarts'. Are there other magical schools out there that I might attend?"

The owl cocked its head. "Why are you asking me? I'm an owl," said the owl in a voice that sounded like an impossibly rapid sequence of hoots.

"Oh come on. We both know you're needed for the exposition."

The owl hooted regretfully. "Fine. Yes, there are other schools. But you should really be asking more interesting questions. Or perhaps I should lead. How did you know to talk to me?"

Harry flashed a look of disappointment. "Although it pains me to say it, I just figured this is the sort of story with talking animals."

"Pray tell, Mr. Potter, why do you think this is a story in the first place? Most humans who think so are what we owls like to call 'batshit insane'."

Harry sighed. This owl is stupid or a troll or both; nonetheless, for the sake of the story, I should probably just go along with it, he thought. "Let's start with the basics. Riddle me this: how on Earth does someone get a lightning-bolt-shaped scar? Have you ever seen a utensil with a suitably shaped prong? Does an otherwise sane mother decide one day that lightning bolt tattoos are just too expensive and so she should carve her infant son's forehead with a kitchen knife?"

The owl glanced at Harry's forehead, and for the first time appeared to be intrigued. "Maybe a neo-Inglorious-Basterd took you as genetically inclined toward Zeus worship and decided they wouldn't let you hide your depraved Paganism so easily."

"I hadn't thought of that," admitted Harry.

"Or perhaps your parents just read way too much Harry Potter."

Harry was distraught. "Harry Potter? What, am I a book now?"

The owl paused for a long moment, somehow grimaced, looked downwards, and placed the tip of its wing on its forehead.

[...]

Thanks for the criticism, you're the first person to give me useful advice. Honestly you probably put more effort into writing this comment than I put into writing my chapter. I really appreciate it. I'll keep a tab open for this comment next time I attempt to write some fiction.

Try re-writing later? As the saying goes, "Write drunk; edit sober."

That's what I did, actually. Maybe I should write sober too. But that Kentucky bourbon was just so inspiring.

For what it's worth I would love if LessWrong stuck to only decision theory, microeconomics, cognitive science, &c; I'd lurk and do what I could to maintain the relatively high standards of quality that LessWrong used to have. But look at how User:badger's excellent sequence on mechanism design went basically ignored compared to all the stupid shit that gets upvoted. I posted what I did because LessWrong has mostly been a signaling and self-help cesspit for years now and I thought my post would quietly attract a few readers who enjoyed it while those who didn't would just downvote and move on. Pissing in a swimming pool is immoral, but I'm pissing in an ocean here.

The post is of quality less than zero.

You aren't the judge of that, Herr Yudkowsky. LessWrong is the judge of that.

I've never upvoted my own posts with sockpuppets. In fact I barely vote at all. Of course I can't be sure someone else didn't use their own sockpuppets to upvote my post multiple times.

Sure, I'll do that. Thanks.

For what it's worth my fanfic was gonna draw a lot of inspiration from Worm and Pact. Wildbow at least explicitly puts forth metaphysics to partially explain the narrative causality. Maybe Eliezer will get around to it too when the mechanics of Prophecy are explained. His Finale of the Ultimate Meta Mega Crossover is great in that regard.

/shrugs. I know I'm biased and all but I didn't think it was that terrible. I spent like two hours editing it before posting. People sure are being mean about it though, so idk. I guess maybe I'll give up on trying to improve my fiction writing skill for now... Maybe it's a 'you have it or you don't' thing.

I know it's not good parody. I know I'm a bad writer. That's why people should downvote it. It's only the deleting it despite its being upvoted part that I object to.

a discussion post with (at least) 7 upvotes and (at least) 5 comments

It had 17 comments upon deletion. I was actually pretty disappointed because I enjoyed the comments on it and now I can't see them.

I like how your critique is strong but no one is upvoting your comment because it can't be used to support any of their petty policy narratives. I'll upvote it, anyway. ETA: Welp, people are upvoting it now, sweet. Retracting this comment.

are you suggesting that your movement is about writing lame parodies with a few clever jokes in them in order to criticize what you dislike

Yes, Tenoke. That is a completely fair and accurate summary of my "movement".

Explaining things without targeted obfuscation? ...Do you know who I am?

Lol. Wow. It may seem absurd but that was the first LessWrong comment I've read in like a year that caused me to actually have a new idea. Thank you.

I was gonna go into that in Chapter Two: Analyzing the Fuck out of an Owl. But I guess I won't, since my stupid fanfic idea seems to be attracting more drama and pettiness than could possibly be justified by the content. Alas, it seems postrationality is just too meta for this base basement world.

You said "hero-worshipping", but okay, I retracted the comment. Also, very clever how you made it seem like you accidentally mis-typed "cultish".

How about subcultures that are allergic to bad content?

Those who are allergic to bad content would never wind up here. I would imagine they killed themselves long ago. Life is an endless procession of bad content.

Sorry for being unclear. I meant that any subculture that is allergic to parody of itself is just inviting less fair and less jocular criticism. Eliezer has already greatly damaged LessWrong's reputation by making it seem cultish. Making comments about how people are sensitive to appearances of cultishness and thus it's good for parody of that alleged cultishness to be banned, is just sowing the wind. I think that there are many interesting and independent intellectuals on LessWrong and I don't want them to be tarred as discreditable cultists. And that's why I would like it to be known that LessWrong is capable of self-parody and isn't going to pathetically grasp at credibility it never had in the first place.

It has a different meaning. It implies "sundry", with connotations of "diverse". (Also, that's not quite what "homonym" means.) I'm okay with some archaism if I get some precision thereby. If that gets lost on the audience then that audience isn't the one I'm most trying to speak to. But I appreciate the critique!

I really like HPMOR too. I joined the Singularity Institute just to discuss ideas like those found in HPMOR. That's why I don't want people like you making comments like the above. Because that sort of self-absorbed naval-gazing defensiveness is more toxic than any lighthearted parody I can spew. You must thoroughly research this.

If I get the Gatekeeper position I'll cede it to you if you can convince me to let you out of the box.

It's the first chapter of an attempt to explicate the skills and virtues of postrationality. It also serves as parody but I'm not poking fun just for the sake of poking. I'm trying to halfway-communicate real ideas via adianoeta. Also I'm trying to learn how to write fiction, 'cuz I suck, as is apparent.