I strong downvoted this comment. Given that and that others have too (which I endorse), I want to mention I’m 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 they’re getting downvoted.
But in brief:
I thought this was a misleading/inaccurate and uncharitable reading of the post
I think that the “kill list” part of your comment feels wildly over-the-top/hyperbolic
Perhaps you meant it as light-hearted or a joke or something, but I think it’s not obvious that that’s the case without hearing your tone
I think it’s 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 list—that’s 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 it’s a good move at the moment to try to speed up advanced nanotechnology development.
But if you just stated you have that view, I’d probably not downvote and instead just leave a comment disagreeing.
And that’d 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 post’s argument or where you disagree with it. I think that’s a much better way to have a productive discussion.
For that reason, I didn’t downvote the parent comment, even though my current guess is that the strategy you’re 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 I’m 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 they’re getting downvoted.
But in brief:
I thought this was a misleading/inaccurate and uncharitable reading of the post
I think that the “kill list” part of your comment feels wildly over-the-top/hyperbolic
Perhaps you meant it as light-hearted or a joke or something, but I think it’s not obvious that that’s the case without hearing your tone
I think it’s 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 list—that’s 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 it’s a good move at the moment to try to speed up advanced nanotechnology development.
But if you just stated you have that view, I’d probably not downvote and instead just leave a comment disagreeing.
And that’d 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 post’s argument or where you disagree with it. I think that’s a much better way to have a productive discussion.
For that reason, I didn’t downvote the parent comment, even though my current guess is that the strategy you’re 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 Michael’s replying to goes against Forum norms.