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