= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MichaelHoward comments on Issues, Bugs, and Requested Features - 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 (628)
I can't see this post on either the recent posts or what's new lists anymore.
<edited to test a LW bug>
It's 9/11 truthism. I removed it. There needs to be some way to indicate this on the post itself, I suppose.
It wasn't clear to me whether the post itself was 9/11 truthism rather than merely using 9/11 truthism as an example. After all, the title was "Seeing patterns where they don't exist" or something of the kind. I did think it would have been considerably improved (and looked less like preaching) by having a link to the lengthy Litany of 9/11 Conspiracy Evidence rather than incorporating the whole thing in the post.
... Though "And" has stated elsewhere that s/he believes 9/11 was an inside job, so it looks like you were right.
Well... it's down the memory hole, but it exists. And it will accept comments if anyone feels like a spot of debunking.
So, you think it would be okay to make a post about it as long as I was on the right side of the argument?
I wasn't commenting on whether it was OK to make a post about it, but on Eliezer's description of it as "9/11 truthism". Sorry if that wasn't clear.
For what it's worth, I think the question "how should one evaluate a big messy pile of ambiguous alleged evidence for something?" is a reasonable one, and any number of Things Widely Considered Irrational might make interesting test cases -- "9/11 truthism", ghosts, healing miracles, whatever. But:
I think the most reliable way to avoid giving that impression is to take steps to make what you write not useful as preaching. (For instance: disclaimers along the lines of "This is the opinion of a tiny minority only, and I happen to be one of them. Discount as you see fit.")
Is 9/11 truthism a specifically banned topic, or is it just too crazy or too offensive?
Are all conspiracy-related topics banned? Can I, for instance, talk about the assassination of JFK?
As a general rule, all of your pet hobbyhorses are banned. Got any other questions?
No, I guess that covers it. When you're ready to debate anything more difficult than religion's corpse, let me know.
Is there a way for admins to take ownership of posts, so you could replace the text with a notice saying what was there and why it was removed?
Admins can edit posts without taking ownership. For anything but an egregious wrong, adding a takedown notice should be preferred to deleting the post.
Admins can edit any post.