Tabletop, video games, sports and maybe someday some other things if I get the ambition to learn.
ouch.
we think that apparent distinctions like this are more fluid than they appear, in the long run, but we broadly agree that there's a choice in the present moment
Getting iced out of the lesswrong community when i realize that everyone just puts the "I'll respond later" react on my posts and doesn't actually respond later
edit: i honestly think the thing with Lesswrong is that they want human interactions to be wholly devoid of uncertainty and implications, thus making those interactions computable... in that regard i respect their efforts here but i think the detailed reacts are going to be used for memes, jokes, implication, passive-aggressive behavior, etc. in defiance of its intent
Embracing uncertainty is how humans gain confidence! The LessWrong community forgets that it's good to make mistakes and learn from them to grow and develop as human beings, actually
Sigils that require memorization and reference by anyone outside? are they just going down the cult checklist
I have no context on this, started typing "LessWrong" into the search bar last night and the first autocomplete was "LessWrong cult", lmao.

with zero posts, only ever reacting "I already addressed this" to every post and refusing to elaborate upon it
Making a second account solely to gaslight other accounts into believing the first account has already addressed this, and the other person is just being stubborn and irrational by refusing to accept this.
📝 Have Discovered A Truly Marvelous Proof Of This Which This Post Is Too Narrow To Contain
LessWrong is what happens when you try to insulate yourself from cognitive biases so much that you end up accidentally falling prey to all of them unintentionally
i write fanfiction with more nuanced double meanings than they seem to think capable for a human in any conversation. words don't just mean one thing!!! sometimes i very much intend for them to mean more than one!!!!
whatever this is supposed to be i guess https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WBdvyyHLdxZSAMmoz/taboo-your-words
often people arguing about whether or not "X is Y" is true are operating on different definitions of Y, and so 'forcing' the argument to continue without the word Y can be productive
somewhat similar principle as the Zhuang Zhou quote:
The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?
there's some astute comment to be made here about a purportedly ultrarational community putting such an enormous priority on emotional impressions (like "unnecessarily combative") but I'll let someone else make it ~Chara
i think rationalists are generally silly but "one ought to consider arguments as logical statements" and "human psychology inhibits this, so one ought to propose arguments in a way that will not lead to them being dismissed out of hand" are not incompatible statements, any more than "i want to be able to do 100 pushups" and "i should stop doing pushups when my arms hurt" are
they aren't, but is it really possible to avoid hurting a rationalist's feelings? and that's rather what this boils down to: if a "rationalist" can simply duck away from any uncomfortable argument with an excuse like "unnecessarily combative" (i.e. "made me feel bad") then is argument even possible?
people not listening to arguments that sufficiently hurt their feelings is kind of a universal property of the human cognitive architecture. if i wrote that initial response full of swears and insults, you probably wouldn't want to continue the argument!
I love the dual impulse of "we'll use a scarecrow icon for strawman arguments" and "we can't just put 'strawman argument' here, we have to describe what that is".
But then! I would've thought "additional questions" meant "I have additional questions", but with an elephant next to it, I'm leaning towards "that doesn't answer the question, it just raises additional questions" with the reference being to "it's elephants all the way down".