= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Desrtopa 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 necessarily object to this policy but find it troubling that you can't give a better reason for not discussing violence being a good idea than PR.
Frankly, I find it even more troubling that your standard reasons for why violence is not in fact a good idea seem to be "it's bad PR" and "even if it is we shouldn't say so in public".
As I quote here:
Edit: added link to an example of SIAI people unable to give a better reason against doing violence than PR.
If the violence is a bad idea, which in nearly all cases it probably would be, other commenters are likely to point that out. Having people inspired to carry out acts of violence in spite of other members pointing out that it's unlikely to bear good results is possible, but unlikely, whereas having people judge the community negatively for discussing such things at all is considerably more likely.
Can you point to an example of this actually happening?
Here.
The post in question was heavily downvoted before it was deleted.