= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CarlShulman comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - 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 (457)
I don't see how this comment even fits the proposed policy, except under a motivatedly-broad reading of "by all means necessary"
Wikipedia thinks otherwise:
I was unaware of that connotation. But I don't think it changes the equation. There's a million different ways to interpret "by all means necessary", the vast majority of which would not be construed to include violence. If this were a forum in which Satre/Malcolm X references were the norm, then that would be different. But it isn't.
I and the one person currently in the room with me immediately took "by all means necessary" to suggest violence. I think you're in a minority in how you interpret it.
OK, I'll update on that.
"By all means necessary" very much means "don't hesitate to use violence". When that phrase isn't required to grant sanction to violence (as when used in military orders), it instead gives sanction to whatever acts aren't already implied (such as the violation of military protocol and/or use of prohibited weapons/tactics).