It's interesting you mention this because as I was wrapping up to go populate a rack and terminate 18 runs of CAT5 I had an insight into myself, in particular - Why I don't blog - Why I don't trust bloggers Let's unpack: Right - the author gets to pick and choose from among those who interact with him, while deleting and censoring those he chooses not to. He has the mic, he chooses who he hands it to, and he turns it on and off at will. That's not free-ranging discussion - that's shaped discussion and it's a very different thing. Wade into /r/The_Donald and take a look at the "commentary" there. do you see much dissent? The header of your linked post: [Content note: Gender, relationships, feminism, manosphere. Quotes, without endorsing and with quite a bit of mocking, mean arguments by terrible people. Some analogical discussion of fatphobia, poorphobia, Islamophobia. This topic is personally enraging to me and I don’t promise I can treat it fairly.] I comment. I often comment where I'm not welcome, and I often say negative things. Put it this way: I'm just as interested in capital-T Truth as anybody else, I just don't think I have it. And in 40 years of searching, I don't think anybody else does, either. Those who are willing to share their journey are interesting and trustworthy. Those who share their arrival are suspect. And for me, I'm not interested in publishing "this is what I think about something" despite the fact that people have been asking me to do so for a decade or more. Because really? "this is what I think RIGHT NOW" is closer to the truth. "this is what I think IN RESPONSE TO THAT" is another caveat. And the blogging platform strikes me as fundamentally dishonest: I mean, yeah - I can pick a bunch of comments that disagree with my nuance and answer them as an illustration of my open-mindedness. But nobody wants to read me putting forth a firmly-held notion and then getting into a pissing match with someone else who disagrees. Who learns from that? And who can trust it? I think bloggers are open to having their nuances discussed so that they can better shape their message for their admirers. I think the pseudo-intellectual "rationalist" sphere is particularly guilty of this - if you disagree, you're irrational and not worthy of debate. However, if you disagree on nuance, on taxonomy, on particulars... well, you're increasing their pagerank so all aboard.SSC often makes highlight posts of comments pulled from the discussion, often containing critical commentary. That, and the regular open threads, strike me as the behavior of someone open to doubt, forming new opinions, revising old ones.
SSC often makes highlight posts of comments pulled from the discussion
[COMMENT THREAD CLOSED GO AWAY]
I bought a squarespace last year in order to blog with it and after an intro post I never posted again. Blogging has evolved. I think bloggers of 2004 would be astonished to hear that blog's are now the more permanent features of the internet, and the place for ephemera and free-flowing discussion actually happens in forums or social media, where the stakes and standards are lesser. A blog feels like it needs to be more polished and formal, and that friction was enough for me to not use it. In the meantime, I've been all over hubski. Go figure. It seems like we completely disagree about SSC (which I also want to distinguish from LessWrong). So far I know of only two posts that the comment threads are closed on, and it's for reasons of personal comfort. There are hundreds of more posts where the comments are completely open. I'm not saying that no editorializing happens as a result of how Scott Alexander decides to interact or showcase the discussion. But for the platform, he goes above and beyond what I would ever expect or demand of someone else. Furthermore, I don't see him viewing his own opinions as beyond the need of defense. I get the sense repeatedly that he went out, amassed data, and only formed opinions after the fact. I certainly disagree with some of his conclusions and arguments, but I don't see what apparently you, Odder, and a handful of others are convinced of, which is his and Yudkowsky's rank irrationality, reactionaryism, and downright wickedness.
kb also touches upon the subject of blogging, which I'd like to share my thoughts about. Because this is blogging: sharing thoughts. Communication is sharing thoughts; some of them just happened to be based on education that the other person doesn't have, academical or personal. Nobody has The Truth, and some people even recognize it - but people still want to share what they know. Some - in hopes that it will help another human being who hasn't arrived to the conclusion they've met and who might benefit from it or the process of its birth in the blogger's mind (see Raptitude by David Cain for an example of such sharing). Nobody can give you The Ladder, but sharing a stair or two is nice, especially when those don't run out. I won't comment on how Eliezer and his followers treat different topics, in comments or otherwise, because I don't have enough experience with them for such an analysis. I just want to point out that the old man kb isn't holding the cup of truth, either, generalizing about bloggers as if they're a homogenous bunch. Just like audioengineers and writers, one would have to presume. Meanwhile: Apparently, this doesn't apply to rationalists or, the more I see it, anyone else whose Internet handle isn't "kleinbl00". Keep in mind: this is from his personal subreddit, where he shares links about himself.Redditors tend to overestimate my knowledge about things because I only comment on things I know and understand.