Could someone explain what the "Eliezer bit" actually was, for those of us who weren't there?
As a semi-outsider, rationalists seem remarkably unlikely to altruistically punish each other for this sort of casual betrayal. (This is a significant part of why I've chosen to remain a semi-outsider by only participating online.)
I'm going to assume this is a false flag attack on conflict theory by an insane, terroristic mistake theorist.
But Schelling's whole point was about how it's virtually impossible to separate those two things.
Oh, I see. Yes, I was assuming in the context of this discussion that X is something you hadn't already thought of, and do find relevant.
Probably? Commentary is useful because most of us aren't smart enough to anticipate all possible criticisms and responses to those criticisms.
Yes, I disagree with that as stated, although I would agree with a slightly softened version that replaced "the author should be interpreted as ignorant" with "the post should be regarded as less trustworthy".
To be clear, I don't interpret a lack of any response as anything other than a sign that the author has a busy life. What I take as strong evidence of the author being incapable of giving a proper response is when there's a back-and-forth in which the author never directly responds to the original question.
My experience has been that the usual reason these threads are unproductive, when they are, is simply because the author doesn't have a sensible answer. Unpleasant as it may be for the rest of us, Said is doing us a great service by revealing this fact.
The entire HBD community is seen as racist pseudoscientists by many.