David_Gerard comments on Possible Cockatrice in written form - Less Wrong

-5 Post author: Aurini 05 January 2011 09:54AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (53)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 January 2011 05:14:31PM *  2 points [-]

I think warnings about information being actively harmful have been pretty rare, though.

There are very few, if any, societies without censorship.

But then there're rare one-offs, the ones that people have called basilisks, and with confirmed deaths or psychological injuries to their credit. These are clearly not in the same league.

I need examples, more than the present post ("hey, here's a rambling crackpot 2000-page suicide note") or, in the case of the LessWrong forbidden post, individuals with known mental disabilities (OCD) getting extremely upset. (I don't deny that they were upset, or that this is something to consider; I do deny it's enough reason for complete suppression.)

Would your criteria ban the song "Gloomy Sunday"?

It seems to me that starting with analysis at a distance is a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) precaution in that handling.

It's catalogue of citable examples time, then.

Claims of real-life examples of the motif of harmful sensation are not rare at all. Substantiated ones are rather less common.

Comment author: jimrandomh 05 January 2011 05:51:59PM 1 point [-]

Would your criteria ban the song "Gloomy Sunday"?

No. Mainly because enforcing a ban on any song requires arranging society in a bad way. Also because I don't consider the mood shift from a depressing song to be much of a harm, and the title is sufficient warning for anyone who wouldn't want to listen to something gloomy. However, my criteria would imply that you should think twice before adding it to your playlist, though, thrice if people subscribe to that playlist who don't want to or ought not to want to listen to it.

Comment author: David_Gerard 05 January 2011 06:05:11PM 1 point [-]

Sorry, I should have given a link. I speak of the claims of it inducing suicide.

What I'm saying is that you need actual evidence before invoking claims of harmful sensation.

Comment author: David_Gerard 06 January 2011 12:08:32AM *  -1 points [-]

jimrandomh had other very apposite comments in private message which I've responded to. I don't think we deeply disagree on anything much to do with the issue of the necessity of learning to stare back at basilisks.