= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bugmaster comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - 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 (1529)
Possible solutions: wear cloaks and masks, i.e. have the membership of the mailing list be composed of anonymized gmail accounts (46233782482@gmail.com). Also, of course, denydenydeny.
This is a good idea, but it does not guarantee security; and I'm not sure how effective it would be against a determined attacker. It would be relatively easy to collect a large enough corpus of text and then use it to match up "46233782482@gmail.com" with "Bugmaster of LessWrong". And, of course, this assumes that Google won't roll over and surrender all of Mr. 46233782482's contact information to the authorities when said authorities come knocking.
How determined an attacker are we planning for, here? The original goal was to just meliorate the damage that a theoretical rogue member could cause (as it seems hopeless to try to prevent that). Are you really anticipating "the authorities" getting involved?
Well, on the one hand, Vladimir_M believes that his beliefs are so heretical that they can cause society -- any society, if I understand him correctly -- to turn against him in a really intense way. On the other hand, our authorities have been getting quite jumpy lately; for example, merely having an Arabic-sounding last name is already enough for the FBI to attach a tracking device to your car. When you put the two factors together, it seems reasonable to expect said authorities to take an interest in the membership of the Contrarian Conspiracy.
Where on Earth did you read anything like that anywhere in my comments? Please provide a citation. (Which you should be able to do if you assert it as a known fact that person X believes Y.)
This, by the way, is another way in which expressing opinions about controversial and charged topics can be more dangerous than one might assume. Already in the second- or third-hand retelling, your opinion is not at all unlikely to be distorted and amplified into a caricatured soundbite that sounds far more crude and awful than anything you ever meant to say or actually said. If such things happen even on the "meta" level, what can one expect to happen when concrete topics are broached?
Ok, I tried doing just that right now, but I couldn't make heads or tails of the thread at all at any capacity. So, firstly, I have to withdraw my comment for lack of evidence; my apologies. But secondly, can you offer some advice for navigating gigantic threads on Less Wrong ? For example, is there a way to search just a single thread for comments with certain keywords, or to flatten the thread, or something ?
Such a belief does not exist! Vladimir_M is a liar. A dirty, dirty liar!
(Prove me wrong? :P)
There's no such thing as a hate-speech basilisk! Don't be sill-
whisperwhisper
RAARGH DIE YOU FOUL HERETIC
Now I'm wondering if there there are any mythical creatures who are known to cause anyone who sets eyes upon them to attack them. It doesn't seem like a survival trait exactly, unless it is intended to force the assailant into a particularly dangerous form of confrontation.
There's the Troll, obviously.
If only those were mythological!
Not exactly mythological, but SCP-053 springs to mind.
It could also work as a curse of the gods that keeps the poor soul forever hiding in fear for its life.
Ahh, good idea. That has almost certainly come up in mythology somewhere.
The first thing that comes to mind is a bit of a stretch, but:
(From Genesis 4.)
So, the curse doesn't directly cause anyone to attack him, but it does indirectly create a situation in which Cain has to expose himself to attackers. Of course, this version of the curse lasts for all of one verse; in the next, God revises it into the Mark of Cain, which is perhaps even more cruel than the original curse.
This would be a mistake analogous to the mind projection fallacy. I do not so understand.
Trivial inconvenience to protect against a trivial danger.
I find the scenario very low probability if high impact.