= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Decius 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)
Why the explicit class distinction?
It would be prohibited to discuss how to or speed and avoid being cited for it. (I thought that this was already policy, and I believe it to be a good policy.)
It would not be prohibited to discuss how to be a vagrant and avoid being cited for it. (Middle class people temporarily without residences typically aren't treated as poorly as the underclass.)
Should the proper distinction be 'serious' crimes, or perhaps 'crimes of infamy'?
As judged by who?
(I don't endorse EY's original proposal, either.)
As judged by the person making the decision to delete.
I don't think the words "serious crime" have the property that different judges would make very similar judgements about a given discussion.
Is that phrase better or worse than
"Laws that are actually enforced" is at least an empirical question. "Serious crime" is just a value judgement.
"Middle class" is just as much an undefined term as "serious crime".
It's concerning that we are having trouble agreeing on where the edge cases are, much less how to decide them.