SneerClub

982 readers

24 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

TracingWoodgrains launches a defense of Manifest's controversial reputation, all without betraying a basic understanding of what the word "controversial" means. (forum.effectivealtruism.org)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

...And if it weren't for that one joke by Hannibal, Bill Cosby would be very uncontroversial.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (11 children)

The author appears to now be planning a hitpiece on David Gerard:

With apologies for resurrecting an old thread: I am an independent writer exploring the potential to write an article focused on Gerard's Wikipedia-related history. I've reviewed the information here and the on-wiki behavior and controversies I can find, but if anyone has information I may have missed or other thoughts to share, I would welcome direct messages or replies. In particular, if anyone with an informed perspective is willing to chat at length on the record, I'd appreciate it. I'm an outsider to the whole Wikipedia ecosystem and trying to parse through thousands of pages of history and edits looking for key moments gets rather dense--it's quite easy for me to miss relevant info.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11466&start=50#p355881

I, for one, am just psyched to see what Jesse Singal's research assistant is going to tell us about the evils of Wikipedia.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

"wikipediocracy"? fucking seriously?

for all the good bits that wikipedia has (and there are notably many), a rulership is definitely not among that list afaik. wtf.

(e: I'm going purely off the domain name there, but holy shit what a name)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

@froztbyte @sneerclub Well, if the vast majority of people in a community share a consensus reality and basic principles, you don’t need a formal governance structure to oppress hallucinating sociopaths.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)