Don’t annoy me. If every time I read your name on a comment I start going “ugh”, I will ban you. This comment policy is deliberately capricious, arbitrary, and unfair, because my primary interest is having comments on my posts that I find interesting and insightful. Some of the things I’ll allow are probably objectively ‘worse’ than things I don’t, but they happen to be less bothersome to me.
I do value intellectual diversity and contrarianism and want to be challenged on my beliefs, so don’t take this as saying that only comments which agree with me are allowed.
Things likely to annoy me:
- Arguing that some forms of rape or abuse are not real or that their survivors do not deserve support.
- Erasure of male rape or abuse survivors.
- Arguing that suicide is always morally wrong and suicidal people have a duty to live.
- Conversely, arguing in favor of nonconsensual euthanasia of disabled people.
- Nice Guys ™. Literally everything that can be said about Nice Guys ™, both pro and anti, has already been said ad nauseam. The topic has been exhausted. Move on.
- Insulting people by calling them fat or autistic or by using words such as “neckbeard” that connote fatness and autism.
- Deliberate misgendering. (I don’t consider accidentally messing up pronouns or lack of knowledge of someone’s gender to be deliberate misgendering.)
- Members of the alt-right with the exception of Konkvistador and Nydwracu. If you would like to be added to the list, try talking more about Foucault and less about cucks.
- The use of the words “motte” and “bailey” to refer to anything other than historical castles.
I reserve the right to edit comments to remove slurs or correct people’s pronouns.
You can edit comments?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Evan Gaensbauer said:
I found this blog by way of Slate Star Codex, and other ‘rationalists’ I know from across social media. I perceive this blog as a part of the larger rationality blogosphere. Obviously, this blog overlaps with other blogospheres, such as ones concerning social justice, and gender politics. However, my interest in these topics will perceive your posts on them, and not necessarily from a perspective typical of LessWrong, as the perspective from an ‘other-‘, if not ‘self-‘, identified rationalist. I understand blogs as integrated with social media are perceived as public journals or diaries for friends to read. I hope you don’t mind me as a stranger reading your blog.
I am not someone who knows you personally, and who has a personal investment in your perspective. I read this blog as I read LessWrong, and surrounding blogs: less casually than others. I am a fellow traveler in intellectual pursuits you share, and you seem to me a reliably good source of information for making my worldview deeper and more precise. Thus, I will personally treat your blog as an archive of useful articles to teach me about the world. So, I will read your blog in a historical fashion, commenting on individual posts if I believe I have a point fit to add. My intention is for me to become a member of your readership who enriches the experience for yourself and my fellow readers. Hence, I may comment in an untimely fashion on seemingly random blog posts. I hope the above explanation sufficiently qualifies my odd behavior such that I’m not banned.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was totally with you until the last line, which just confused the hell out of me, not that I have any real need to talk about them, but… do you find the history of castles triggering?
LikeLiked by 1 person
See here for an example of what ze means: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
I’m given to understand that at some point, some commenters here were overusing the term against other commenters here. Technically, I guess I’m in violation of the letter of the policy here, but I think this meta-level explanation is within the spirit of the rule.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Probably should’ve included this link up there: https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/commenting-note/
Much thanks for the explanation. I hadn’t heard of the idea. By some strange coincidence I’ve been reading about the history of fortifications recently and I took the words far too literally.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t think that you have any idea how hypocritical you are.
Is it possible to message you and discuss one-on-one?
I have recently interacted with someone who tests the boundaries of example #2 in a way I could use some ideas on. What do you do if someone is sensitive enough to others’ upsetness that even a reaction like “thank you for telling me, this reason for cancelling a date last minute is understandable, and also I’m hurt and upset I got cancelled on, can we do something re-centering soon” (stated in an even tone and a grave but not angry facial expression) is too much negative incentive to someone?
I feel like any reaction smaller than that starts slipping into “pretending not to be upset” territory, and I don’t want to abnegate my own legitimate emotional responses entirely. I also still want to incentivize them to keep telling the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person