Posting about this thing is not about this thing, but about signaling concern for this thing in order to raise one's status. If one were to actually care about this thing, one would immediately direct all but one's minimal living expenses and cryonics fees towards this thing. If you ever go to a movie you obviously do not really care about this thing.
I'm glad you brought this up, Konkvistador, but I'd like to solidify my status as a member of this community by casting suspicion on you.
While sympathetic to this criticsm I must signal my world-weariness and sophistication by writing a several long paragraphs about how this is much too optimistic and we are in grave danger of a imminent and eternal takeover by our opponents. The only solution is to begin work on an organization dedicated to preventing this which happens to give me access to material resources and attractive females.
Your style is superficially represtentative of our tribe, but in your comments elsewhere, we can see that you disagree with us on Obvious Facts in a way that reveals your low moral character.
Let`s remember that Rallying Slogan, and that inspirational forward-looking excuses to shun Konkvistador. In fact I think his vile ideology has become too common around here, and we need someone suspiciously similar to me to step up and purge our community in a friendly sounding way.
Let`s not forget, slogan taken out of context to justify my proposal.
Well, good thing you've shown your superiority to both sides by making a meta comment about the discussion rather than contributing to it.
Since the news is so heavily inflated by both green and blue bias, I do not follow it. This is a sign of many virtues and is an example that you all should follow, but I understand that you will not as you lack the virtues that I value highest--in particular the virtues you value are clearly inferior.
Because of the path that I have chosen which lifts me above both the blues and greens, I have no idea what it is that happened and I would appreciate it if someone would inform me about The Thing.
However my immense virtue allows and requires me to only engage in discussion of The Thing which is unrelated to Blues and Greens, and even to Reds, who, while avoiding many common mistakes of blues and greens should really just wash their hands of the whole thing LIKE I DO. So if anyone says anything that I interpret to be blue or green or even red (or purple or orange, but let's be honest who is purple or orange?) I will be totally justified in raining verbal abuse on them and leaving the discussion, and will still be the officially neutral and unbiased member of the discussion.
I was like you once (though better perhaps, because I did it earlier) but then I transcended such egocentric pseudo-virtue and reached the true apex of apolitical virtue: faith respecting apologetic detachment.
The critical turning point was when I realized that naive Thing-following of the part of the masses was actually a critical element in the cohesiveness of our civilization. By ignoring Things, and emotionally disengaging from naive Blue/Green loyalty I was actually subtly defecting on the constituent civic elements of our goodarchy for the sake of scoring points in a silly meta-political status game.
Tragically, my self modification in this regard was so successful that I could no longer participate in good faith in the hallowed and respectable rallies of the Blues nor could I non-ironically march with the Greens in their enthusiastic chariot parades... even as I now respect both of these activities. However, to authentically respect the rustically charming virtue of my people's simplistic social forms I have found myself hanging to the side and modestly cheering for the good hearted participants on both sides of this ancient (and ultimately adaptively balancing) social di...
I would like to point out that the position you're arguing for could reasonably be called meta-Green. The meta-Blue position would be to attempt to destroy the whole Blue-Green political system on the grounds that it's irrational. As a meta-Green myself, I agree this would be a bad idea, but now that I've pointed this out, you should have an easier time marching non-ironically with the Greens.
Expression of concern for your mental health and your adherence to prescribed medications. Friendly conviviality deploying a charming mixture of blue and green political shibboleths to deflect the substance of your Thing-related obsession. Flattery of the forum itself and its moderators for their provision of such an open and caring environment. Request for someone who knows him well to visit magfrump to attend to potential mental health needs.
It should be obvious to any True Bayesian that the author is a Frequentist Pig who misuses the Art of Statistics to persuade the ignorant. For example, I cite a statistic that the OP never referenced and show how it could be misleadingly interpreted. It is blatantly obvious that the author has insufficient understanding of quantum mechanics to continue this discussion. Since I have read several Wikipedia articles on the subject, I am qualified to point out irrelevant facts and claim that they show the author's misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, despite the original post having nothing to do with the subject. I would now link to my dissertation on the subject, but my dissertation is really only a blog post and I haven't actually written that blog post yet since that would require me to clarify my vague and inaccurate thoughts.
The original post is evidence of the falling standards in this community due to the increase in new members ever since that other event.
An inspirational quote I found while researching this subject to confirm I am right:
Our fight, of [A] against [B] over [C], is but one battle in the ancient war over [F], along the great divide between [D] and [E]. Many do not realize how many of our apparently mundane conflicts are, in reality, battles in this ancient war. Today is a crucial day in this war, so we must not give up, and we must not lose hope, or someday [D] may lose [F] forever. Fight, fight!
For [D]!
I note that this is isomorphic to any reasoning that successfully persuades my present self to cooperate with my community of temporal selves, whether on collectively selfish matters or otherwise. Why do you hate {discipline|cooperation|TDT|puppies}? I must conclude that rather than expressing propositional content your ideology is a will-to-power on behalf of high-conscientiousness self-communities such as yourself by attempting to disarm my tribe of the ability to pass a marshmallow test, thus leaving more marshmallows for you. I do not judge you for this, but I wish our culture could be a little more honest with itself and be sanctimonious about my values instead.
I'm as serious as a heart attack... about tricking you into breaking form.
(Puts on shades, skateboards into sunset.)
I must remark my admiration for your tour de force, as expressing my support for you and your achievements signals that I am within what must now be seen as the cool camp. This support comes to reinforce your upper hand on the other camp, despite the fact that your previous victory was entirely tangential to the thing that happened.
Ah, but I can prove my superior understanding by pointing to this thing, which is neither [D] or [E], but from the reference I once read, which probably was peer-reviewed by a respected panel of experts, I can tell you that it shares features from both [D] and [E]. This does not mean that I do not agree with a member that has much more karma than me, it just means that the category used here might suffer from x bias. So we should really apply that theorem from this chapter of Jaynes' book, to obtain that after all [D] is the correct bayesian option.
Please upvote me, I'm so smart!
[Serious comment]
This is funny and all but I worry that by mocking political signalling we miss that there are real substantive discussions to be had. Blue/Green values offs are obviously wrong, but there are empirically resolvable issues that come under the realm of "politics" and by rejecting all forms of "political" discussion we remove our ability to talk seriously about it.
E.g. Gun control (which I assume this is in reference to) is a controversial issue in the US, but the question of whether policy X is likely to be effective at producing outcome Y is an empirical one which can be made by referencing comparable past examples. This empirical question is separate from any messy political stuff about values and rights.
Except that people's attachments to values and rights, as well as the legal pragmatics surrounding them, have real-world consequences that impact the answer to that empirical question.
What are we getting at here? A thing happened, and predictably, people attempt to recruit it as a soldier. Your meta-commentary is entertaining, but what's the point?
We're just making fun of people treating any news as evidence for the superiority of their tribe. Then making fun of ourselves for asserting the superiority of our tribe by making fun of others.
I think the serious use of this post is to look at your own thinking, notice you're doing those mocked things, and stop.
Let's ban the serious tag and live happily ever after in a superposition of humour and serious meta-comment.
In my last comment, I claimed that Mr. Konkvistador's choleric sound bites hurt the pocketbooks of working families, and that claim is even more true now. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in I'll announce something to the effect of how I have begged Mr. Konkvistador's apostles to step forth and bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. To date, not a single soul has ag...
Comment about the tenuous relevance of friendly AI to that thing. Misuse of a term from mathematics or computer science to support my point. The number 3^^^3 appears for no particular reason.
I don't think discussion of that thing is appropriate on lesswrong. People get mindkilled about the subject and don't end up in agreement with me about how we should deal with the thing. Moreover, seeing a bunch of people who are either too stupid to see the truth or who are just being contrarian about it will put off new members and make us look to outsiders like a guvat.
Can we not practice rationality on something uncontroversial, like that other thing?
Can we not practice rationality on something uncontroversial, like that other thing?
That other thing where LessWrongers end up agreeing with you? Ha! That people here don't realize that is controversial is evidence of x-ist bias of the site.
Moreover, seeing a bunch of people who are either too stupid to see the truth or who are just being contrarian about it will put off new members and make us look to outsiders like a guvat.
This particular (relatively) new member, rather than being put off, feels this thread is made of 128% pure concentrated awesome, especially the parts of which vocal appreciation is likely to improve my status in the community.
Horrendously misspelled and grammatically incorrect of-topic musing that should be in one of the monthly threads.
I am emotionally excited and/or deeply hurt by what st_rev wrote recently. You better take me seriously because you've spent a lot of time reading my posts already and feel invested in our common tribe. Anecdote about how people are tribal thinkers.
That thing that happened shows that everything I was already advocating for is correct and necessary. Indeed it is time for everyone to put their differences aside and come together to carry out my recommended course of action. If you continue to deny what both you and I know in our hearts to be correct, you want everyone to die and I am defriending you.
I don't even know where to begin. This is what blueist ideology has been workign towards for decades if not millennia, but to see it written here is hard to stomach even for one as used to the depravity caused by such delusions as I am. The lack of socially admired virtues among its adherents is frightening. Here I introduce an elaborate explanation of how blueist domination is not just completely obvious and a constant thorn in the side of all who wish more goodness but is achieved by the most questionable means often citing a particular blogger or public intellectual who I read in order to show how smart I am and because people I admire read him too. Followed by an appeal to the plot of a movie. Anecdote from my personal life. If you are familiar with the obscure work of an academic taken out of context and this does not convince you then you are clearly an intolerant sexual deviant engaging in motivated cognition.
Consider well: do you want to be on the wrong side of history? If you persist, millions or billions of people you will never meet will be simultaneously mystified and appalled that an issue so obvious caused such needless contention. They will argue whether you were motivated more by stupidity, malice, raw interest, or if you were a helpless victim of the times in which you lived. Characters in fiction set in your era will inevitably be on (or at worst, join) the right side unless they are unredeemable villains. (Including historical figures who were on the other side, lest they lose all audience sympathy.).
Remember: it's much more important what hypothetical future people will consider right than what you or current people you respect do. And you and I both know they'll agree with me.
While sympathetic to this criticism I must signal my world-weariness and sophistication by writing several long paragraphs about how this is much too optimistic and we are in grave danger of a imminent and eternal takeover by our opponents. The only solution is to begin work on an organization dedicated to preventing this which happens to give me access to material resources and attractive females.
Ciphergoth proves to be the lone voice of reason by encouraging us to recall what we all learned on 9/11:
However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct.
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html