...into this garden comes a fool...Then another fool joins, and the two fools begin talking to each other, and at that point some of the old members, those with the highest standards and the best opportunities elsewhere, leave...
It reads to me like the fool is somehow intrinsically, immutably subhuman compared to the "knowledgeable and interested folk". It's as if we weren't all once not knowledgeable, as if the non-knowledgeable fool can never become knowledgeable. I'd say that compared to a disinterested fool, a non-knowledgeable fool who's interested and is attracted to this garden of "high quality speech" is easier to fix.
The conclusion seems to go against everything Less Wrong is about. It reads to me like, "biases? Nah, I bet nine times out of ten you're not biased at all. Downvote away!"
In this context, "fool" is an action not an immutable nature - it's the action of talking about topics that are either well below the intellectual level of the ongoing discussion, or a distraction from it. It doesn't matter why a person does this, it matters that they do it at all. Up to a certain rate of inflow of well meaning fools, the group can absorb and socialize them. If there is a fire-hose of them, you get an Eternal September and the forum dies.
Yes, it is elitist, but judging someone as being not up to the standards of a community is not the same as calling them subhuman.
As for the conclusion, the argument he's making is that he has seen evidence of a bias against making these harsh judgements, and it has led to the destruction of valuable internet communities.
...into this garden comes a fool...Then another fool joins, and the two fools begin talking to each other, and at that point some of the old members, those with the highest standards and the best opportunities elsewhere, leave...
It reads to me like the fool is somehow intrinsically, immutably subhuman compared to the "knowledgeable and interested folk". It's as if we weren't all once not knowledgeable, as if the non-knowledgeable fool can never become knowledgeable. I'd say that compared to a disinterested fool, a non-knowledgeable fool who's interested and is attracted to this garden of "high quality speech" is easier to fix.
The conclusion seems to go against everything Less Wrong is about. It reads to me like, "biases? Nah, I bet nine times out of ten you're not biased at all. Downvote away!"