I strong downvoted this comment. Given that and that others have too (which I endorse), I want to mention Iām happy to write some thoughts on why I did so if you want, since I imagine sometimes people new-ish to the EA Forum may not understand why theyāre getting downvoted.
But in brief:
I thought this was a misleading/āinaccurate and uncharitable reading of the post
I think that the ākill listā part of your comment feels wildly over-the-top/āhyperbolic
Perhaps you meant it as light-hearted or a joke or something, but I think itās not obvious that thatās the case without hearing your tone
I think itās just in general clearly not conducive to good discussion for someone to in any way imply their conversational partners may put them on a kill listāthatās not a good way to start a productive debate where both sides are open to and trying to learn from each other and see if they want to change their views
Less importantly, I also disagree with your view that itās a good move at the moment to try to speed up advanced nanotechnology development.
But if you just stated you have that view, Iād probably not downvote and instead just leave a comment disagreeing.
And thatād certainly be the case if you stated that view but also indicated an openness to having your view changed (as I believe the post did), explained why you have your view in a way that sounds intended to inform rather than persuade, and ideally also attempted to summarise your understanding of the postās argument or where you disagree with it. I think thatās a much better way to have a productive discussion.
For that reason, I didnāt downvote the parent comment, even though my current guess is that the strategy youāre endorsing there is a bad one from the perspective of safeguarding and improving the world & future.
I strong downvoted this comment. Given that and that others have too (which I endorse), I want to mention Iām happy to write some thoughts on why I did so if you want, since I imagine sometimes people new-ish to the EA Forum may not understand why theyāre getting downvoted.
But in brief:
I thought this was a misleading/āinaccurate and uncharitable reading of the post
I think that the ākill listā part of your comment feels wildly over-the-top/āhyperbolic
Perhaps you meant it as light-hearted or a joke or something, but I think itās not obvious that thatās the case without hearing your tone
I think itās just in general clearly not conducive to good discussion for someone to in any way imply their conversational partners may put them on a kill listāthatās not a good way to start a productive debate where both sides are open to and trying to learn from each other and see if they want to change their views
Less importantly, I also disagree with your view that itās a good move at the moment to try to speed up advanced nanotechnology development.
But if you just stated you have that view, Iād probably not downvote and instead just leave a comment disagreeing.
And thatād certainly be the case if you stated that view but also indicated an openness to having your view changed (as I believe the post did), explained why you have your view in a way that sounds intended to inform rather than persuade, and ideally also attempted to summarise your understanding of the postās argument or where you disagree with it. I think thatās a much better way to have a productive discussion.
For that reason, I didnāt downvote the parent comment, even though my current guess is that the strategy youāre endorsing there is a bad one from the perspective of safeguarding and improving the world & future.
As a moderator, I agree with Michael. The comment Michaelās replying to goes against Forum norms.