= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Strange7 comments on Closet survey #1 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (653)
That's censorship, not discrimination. Different problem needs a different solution. Once the information's made available, and complaints are possible, only then can antidiscrimination measures be implemented with any chance of success.
Have you ever known anyone to go out of their way to deny a dead person the opportunity to speak? If someone sat up near the conclusion of their own funeral and disputed the previous speaker's main points, I doubt they'd be shouted down.
If I censor adequately then, by your definition, it is not possible for me to discriminate. I think that is a silly definition of 'discriminate'.
Possibly so. Silly, however, is not the same as wrong.
I am arguing that in such an environment of overwhelming censorship, it makes no sense to attempt to deal with the discrimination until the censorship itself has been cut away to the point that specific claims of descrimination - that is, complaints - are available. Censorship suppresses social problems in the same sense that morphine suppresses pain.
Arguing that some group should receive a material benefit which no member of that group has actually requested, and citing discrimination as the cause, is just some political game.
Please consider 'wrong, stupid, absurd, unhelpful and generally BAD' to be substituted for the word 'silly' in the grandparent.
You gave an unqualified heuristic that applies to lots of situations, most of which it is inaccurate - and very dangerous - in. That's poor form at a bare minimum.
Not arguing with the downvotes, just trying to clarify what I meant.