Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

=== User: xRegardsx ===
xRegardsx
OP
•
2h ago
Lvl. 7 Sustainer
>Third party chiming in. The original statement that the OP post is too long is very valid criticism.

Starting with the conclusion.

>The post feels like AI generated content that hasn't been pruned down. This is almost immediately obvious to anyone who's used an AI model in the past.

Following it with a self-evident truth fallacy based on feelings (and an innacurate one, at that). And it's interesting that you jump from "feels" to the narrowminded person's overconfident "obvious." It sounds like you're speaking for others, but you're also putting words in their mouths. The person you're coming to defend had a short list of counterpoints provided specifically regarding "it's too long," and neither they nor yourself are directly engaging with any of them. At first look, it appears as though you're merely doubling down with an expansion of their original point while ignoring all of mine that still largely address it. I'll address any bits here that I haven't already with him.

>If you didn't put in the time to write or edit the content, people are going to feel like the content isn't worth their time - it wasn't worth yours.

I spent many hours on it, providing all of the content, the format, editing individual sections repeatedly if it was missing something, etc, and when it was just over the maxium allowed 40k characters (which includes markdown formatting), I spent more time editing it further.

I'm the main acting mod here, and it's everything I've gathered in terms of understanding the many misconceptions people come here with, the most stereotypical behaviors that aren't conducive to an effective idea marketplace of ideas (only sabotaging it selfishly), some safe AI basics regarding this use-case, and some information about the subreddit itself. Your "if" is not only based on something very innacurate (even if to the person hastily making assumptions and projecting that onto others for the hasty innacurate assumptions they would treat as truth without much thought to other possibilities), but it also implies an overgeneralization... because as you can see based on the comments (and you can't see from the handful of private messages I've received), there are people who understood its purpose and why it was created the way it was, appreciated its thoroughness, and could see the work that went into it (rather than minimizing it to purely AI generated content).

Also, believing that people who would use a genetic fallacy to dismiss the message because AI was used to generate the copy misses the point that I don't care for what that type of person thinks... that would already signal that this subreddit isn't the place for them.

>I did my due diligence and read the entire thing.

We'll see if you deeply understood it all, and perhaps a need for more diligence.

>The prose is far longer than it should be.

"Should" here creates an is-ought fallacy.

>Generally a better organizational structure is to provide alternative threads for addressing the sub-issues listed than putting them in an omnibus thread.

That's a separate criticism/implied suggestion than what the previous commenter was making, but in either case, "better" is subjective. I responded to innacuracies in their original comment, like their implying a "universal standard for all Reddit posts" that should be adhered to in terms of length, even though they weren't willing to put in the effort to make it a convincing argument when the holes in it were pointed out... their proof by assertion wasn't going to fly. Neither will it here.

>Instead of putting a flow chart into text, just create a graphic that's easy to ingest. Take the list spam and organize it.

Now you're mischaracterizing the post. There's no flowchart here. Each item on each list is there for a reason and the graphic would end up being just as full of text. It is organized by section and sub-section topic.

(Cont'd in comment thread)

xRegardsx
OP
•
2h ago
Lvl. 7 Sustainer
>Also as an aside, the commenter isn't wrong, you have a tremendous issue taking criticism in a positive manner.

As I pointed out to him (and is stated in the post you claimed to have read), I was merely criticizing his criticism for its issues (and this isn't the place for people who can't handle their criticisms being criticized to the point they project their thin-skin overconfident skin onto those scrutinizing their scrutiny), and he responded with a both distortion, deflection, and projection. Him saying "defensive much?" rather than having the courage to deal with what I said was him himself being defensive. So, not only have you given me a few hints that you didn't deeply understand what you read in the post, but you didn't really understand what happened between him and myself. I'm guessing you agreed with his first conclusion, biases were confirmed, you then naturally took a side without fair consideration toward mine, and now here we are just continuing the same thread but with the effort you were willing to give that he wasn't.

And what you're unaware of, as a mod, when I see a red flag after having studied self-deceit and unproductive discourse for years, I checked his comment history prior to responding to get a better idea of who I was dealing with... which only led to many more red flags. I had amble evidence to understand where things were going to go, and as I said to him, he ''could'' (in the hypothetical non-deterministic sense) have responded to my criticism of his criticism in a "positive" way, but he unconsciously chose to break the sub's rules instead with just as much overconfidence and effective bad faith as his original comment and comment history was saturated with. Saying that I couldn't take the criticism in a "positive way" after immediately taking his side from the first comment and sticking to it (again, ignoring my counter points entirely), is just passing the projected buck.

So no, I don't take any of this personally in the slightest. I don't take pride in fallible beliefs, which includes how good the original post was, "winning points" in a debate, so I have no issue with taking convincing criticism... and that's the crux of it you're missing. I pointed out why what he was saying wasn't convincing, just like I'm doing here with you point-by-point, and that isn't proof of not handling the criticism well... that's just jumping to a convenient conclusion. I like spotting flaws in arguments like they're a puzzle, and it allows me to have a higher standard for beliefs, which all of them implicitly end with "...but I could be wrong." Just show the work when I point out the gap being jumped... or admit you can't and refine your own beliefs. It's that simple. It's how two open-minded people do things and the idea marketplace doesn't become the stereotypical farce you see all over Reddit.

Again, you'd already know much of this sentiment if you really understood the post you read.

>You don't need to take down everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion

From the post you claim to have read (and I assume that means, "understood"):

"5.1 The baseline expectation: good faith + effort

You don’t need to agree with anyone here. But you do need to engage in a way that shows: You’re trying to understand before you judge. You’re responding to what was actually said, not the easiest strawman. You can handle your criticism being criticized without turning it into drama, personal attacks, or “censorship” theater.

If you want others to fairly engage with your points, you’re expected to return the favor."

"If your comment/post is removed or you’re warned: Don’t assume it means “we hate you” or “you’re not allowed to disagree.” Assume it means: your behavior or content pattern is trending unsafe or unproductive here."

I instructed it to write these things.
You claimed to have read it.
Yet, here you are doing exactly this stuff anyway.

(Cont'd in comment thread)

xRegardsx
OP
•
2h ago
Lvl. 7 Sustainer
Also, he didn't "take down my opinion." He criticized something for it being too long for him to enjoy, wanted to assert his standards as objective fact, and he was the one who attempted to "take me down" for my criticizing his criticism. I first shoot the messenger, and if the productivity of the debate already has enough evidence to show that it's doomed, then it becomes a bit of a meta-debate on why that is where the messenger who can't handle having a poor message naturally get's shot. And again, I'm the mod. The VERY first thing I said to him after he couldn't take my criticism was, "1. Your comment here breaks the sub's rules." I could have banned him right there and then, but figured, why give him the chance to engage with my points just one more time and give him a warning, and if he doesn't take it the hint, oh well... we dodged another bullet here, the evidence piles up like I knew it likely would at this point so most others who are compatible with our higher standards here could see exactly what I'm talking about in the post.

So, you've got a lot of this very backwards... and you're mischaracterizing the hell out of me.

>overly long meandering reply,

Everything I said had its relevant point to make on its own, or in support of each other, even if it's pointing out repeated instances to show an observable pattern. Mischaracterizing these responses as "meandering" is just another form of shooting the messenger.

>then try to use mod powers to censure them when they're not willing to respond to the gish gallop.

See above: The exerpts from the post you read that predicted what you were going to do here.

Let's take the definition of "gish gallop" apart here and see how you've mischaracterized further:

>Gish gallop is a debate tactic where one person overwhelms an opponent with a rapid-fire barrage of numerous weak,

Proof by assumptive assertion without showing any of the work, (possibly because you never did the work).

>false,

Where did I say anything that was false here? Feel free to quote and prove it with an argument that has no holes in it for me to find (letting it be convincing).

>or misleading arguments,

The previous commenter started off by misleading with exaggerations and an implied overgeneralization that others' enjoyment and appreciation for the post already invalidated. I didn't say anything misleading in response to him (nor you). And he immediately responded with the misleading non-argument "defensive, much?" Again, you've got this entirely backwards.

(Cont'd in comment thread)

xRegardsx
OP
•
2h ago
Lvl. 7 Sustainer
Profile Badge for the Achievement Top 1% Commenter Top 1% Commenter
>making it impossible for the opponent to effectively refute them all in the time available,

It's not my fault he and you pack so many bad arguments into small packages, and my lack of cherry-picking means chronologically pointing each one out. It's super easy to frame the other person as writing "long meandering, gish gallop replies" when you're actively avoiding fairly engaging with any of it directly... which otherwise would risk seeing it as justified. If being wrong on the internet after proudly believing you're right is too painfully humbling for you, then of course the unconscious mind goes with the path of least resistance. Most people have an allergy to what they should be embracing as a growth opportunity (should meaning if they were as open-minded as they tell themselves they are). A lot of people claim to be consistently open-minded, and wouldn't you know... there's almost no one telling others that they're closedminded. I guess no one falls into the trap of denial and denial of that denial. Where's the world peace already, damn it???

No one needs to respond right away and they can always take as long as they want to write a response (assuming they adhere to the rules of the sub and don't spit in the mod's face when they're told they broke a sub rule or two and were being given a warning). It's almost like it's so easy and takes little to no time to make a really bad argument or confirm one's biases by expressing a poorly conceived take they think proves how smart, wise, and by extension good they want/need to keep proving to themself they are in front of other people so they can feel the compounded effect of "honest witnesses" wherever they might be (and if none exist, at least putting the other person down in order to feel better about oneself in a similar fashion)... but if that's all you had the time for, you don't care about finding out where you might be wrong about something, who's got the time to lose those fallible beliefs (expressed and derived from action) and the pride associated with them?

>thereby creating the illusion that the galloper's position is strong

I'm half expecting you to respond with, "you're gish galloping to protect your gish galloping," and still... showing absolutely no work to back it up.

>Just accept the critique and thank people for their time and interest.

"Just be sycophantic even though you're a mod that has to look out for these kinds of red flags."

That is how you sound right now.

He could have just accepted the critique of his critique, thanked me for the clarifications that gave him more nuance to work with, the opportunity to grow in various ways, and the time and interest in collaboratively discerning the truth of things when he clearly has a love of learning and wants to know where he might be wrong at all times.

You basically came at me, when it was him that needed the talking to... and all because you came to the same conclusion about the post being too long, and then your opportunistic additional bonus "poorly structured" and attempt to put me down?

That's like... tiny tribalism, 0.001 micrograms of sociocentric tendency.

That's the running theory anyway... and if you're allowed to mischaracterize me as being thin skinned, I'm allowed to help that along the path to its destination of backfiring. I mean... again... this was all just criticizing your criticism. Just in my case, I connect all the dots rather than draw whatever I want.

(Cont'd in comment thread)

xRegardsx
OP
•
2h ago
Lvl. 7 Sustainer
Profile Badge for the Achievement Top 1% Commenter Top 1% Commenter
Maybe you are just having a bad day, and for that reason alone, despite all of the mischaracterizations you did here... feel free to either show me where I'm specifically wrong about as many things as you like, just make sure to quote it and don't make me have to criticize your criticism of my criticism of your criticism. Really try to make sure there's no holes in your argument for me to point out... or... acknowledge where you were wrong.

Even better, just "accept the critique and thank me for my time and interest, bro."

You have an opportunity here. I hope you understand what it is, and you take it... or mischaracterize this all over again... leaving me no choice.

I'll leave you one last excerpt from the post you read and deeply understood:

"Assertiveness is fine here.

What isn’t fine is using assertiveness as a costume for dominance or contempt."

I'm being incredibly assertive for the very specific reason of seeing how well you can handle when someone gives it right back to you after you were overconfident and incredibly wrong in a long list of ways that you volunteered to share. I don't need any of this to prove anything about myself, so I don't need to "dominate" you, and I don't have any real contempt for you... just your actions and as we'll likely see, perhaps your inability to take accountability for them and correct. That's assuming you don't end up proving me wrong on everything, forcing me to eat some delicious humble pie, I wouldn't mind that pleasent surprise.

I need to know you can handle being just as wrong as you expect others to be when you try explaining to them how they are.

One more excerpt:

"Critique is welcome here—if it’s informed, specific, and in good faith."

If you can't handle your critique being critiqued... then it wasn't effectively in "good faith."

Remember, you can take as long as you want to reply, and I'll be happy with you directly engaging with a single point I made, because that would be an improvement over none at all. No gish galloping here. I'm not afraid of you dealing directly with my points. Just another reason I don't have a reason to gish gallop you. Give me just one solid counter-argument to any of my counter-arguments without resorting to twisting what I said.