I don't see how any of those questions relate to my post.

(For transparency:

I initially read your post as saying that, because RationalWiki isn't "really" rational, their opinion on LW is automatically wrong and stupid; that therefore, anyone who shares or has absorbed that opinion (since the RW link was just a conveniently available illustration) is also wrong and stupid; and that therefore, their potential opinion of me as part of it is either inconsequential or totally outside my control. Or maybe you meant that people you know don't take RW seriously, and that therefore I shouldn't worry about encountering RW attitudes in the wild.

I then read more closely and realized that you weren't actually saying any of that. Furthermore, your post wasn't even directed at me, since I never claimed that RW served some vital and unique function (though if nothing else it's good for documenting and illustrating the beliefs and attitudes of the type of people who contribute to it). For you to take my post to mean that (I reasoned at the time) would be stupid; and steelmanning and the principle of charity obligated me to act under the assumption that you weren't stupid until conclusively shown otherwise. Therefore, I had to consider your post a personal tangent and ignore it.

I now realize that I was committing illusion of transparency, assuming short inferential distance and neglecting connotation. I apologize if my previous post connoted that I was holding RW above reproach; and I reject your connotation that RW's flaws mean that I'm wrong to be concerned about the consequences of loudly promoting LW and its memes wherever I go.)

This post (edit: fixed link) reminded me of this thread. 2.5 years later, I'm still not sure I understand your point or why it has a +5 score. How does what LW (which I guess I'm not part of) "wants"^W "wishes" relate to my concerns?

I agree that there are some important methodological issues with the paper, and it is far from the last word. What the criticisms you link don't address well, however, is that fact that (a) the paper is strengthened by the fact that it has a strong, validated theory of underlying behavior...

- "AnonySocialScientist", Reddit

Could you post a screenshot or archived version of your Facebook link?

Thanks for the link, but that's one weak headline. Next time try something like "Pro-deathers have been trying to make sure MIRI doesn't get Reddit's donation. Vote for MIRI so they are better able to help life!"

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

What do you think public perception would be of two teenage girls who played with the genitals of an unconscious drunk guy?

Tangentially, it might be similar to public perception of this writer. From the top-displayed comments:

This is rape. Period. You're one sick fuck.

Also:

Yes, because when a man is aroused it's totally not rape is it...Fucking hell you're stupid...

Edit: It might be a poor example of a gender-symmetrical act, since one actually can "play with" male genitals non-sexually; I do it whenever I use the bathroom, and have it done whenever I have a medical chekcup.

I like how everyone who links this talks about the immortality tangent and ignores the first two panels and "suicide is not legitimate". You don't want to live? Too bad, it's your job! You're not happy? You're not trying hard enough! This mythological figure was happy, so you should be too! Depression is a choice!

I imagine because it was an implied insult and the intended friendly tone didn't come through or wasn't considered appropriate. Seems to be back to neutral, though.

Don't worry; I'm sure there are plenty of ways you can still contribute.

Edit: Well, I thought it was funny.

Recently stumbled into this. It's probably incomplete, but it's something.