Lumifer comments on The Fable of the Burning Branch - Less Wrong

-19 Post author: EphemeralNight 08 February 2016 03:20PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (175)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 February 2016 06:56:20PM 2 points [-]

If you think the parable is advocating anything else you don't like, that, again, says more about you than me.

No, it just says that you don't understand the effect of your writing or a clueless about modern culture.

The news of last weeks are about how Rossy is pro-rape because of one article he pretends to have intentend to be satirical calling for the legislation of rape on private property.

Not denouncing writing like that has a high cost for a community like this because it affects people who come to this community and read the article.

I think the best action from your end if you really claim not to intend to communicate the message that readers of your article understood would be to simply delete the article.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 February 2016 07:18:40PM *  14 points [-]

are about how Rossy is pro-rape

First, it's Roissy, not Rossy. Second, it's not Roissy at all, it's Roosh.

Not denouncing writing like that has a high cost for a community

What are we, in Maoist China? You feel the need to reaffirm your loyalty by denouncing (!) writings which deviate from the Party line?

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 February 2016 07:56:23PM 0 points [-]

You feel the need to reaffirm your loyalty by denouncing (!) writings which deviate from the Party line?

The problem isn't about the writing, it about LW's editoral decision to publish it or not to publish it. I have no problem with the author having a blog and publishing his writing on that blog.

Once the LW community publishes it, it however becomes responsible for dealing with it.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 February 2016 08:04:22PM *  8 points [-]

LW's editoral decision to publish it or not to publish it.

Ain't no such thing. Does not exist.

You seem to be very confused about the nature of LW. It is NOT a publication where editors select some submissions for publications and so provide curated content.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 February 2016 10:00:31PM -2 points [-]

Ain't no such thing. Does not exist.

Hosting a website like this does come with both legal and social responsibility for it's content. External parties do make LW responsible for the content it hosts to the extend that it's not explictely made clear that LW denounces it.

Comment author: Vaniver 10 February 2016 12:21:17AM 19 points [-]

to the extend that it's not explictely made clear that LW denounces it.

If only there was a way to quantify the LW community's approval or disapproval of a post submitted to it.

Comment author: Lumifer 10 February 2016 02:08:52AM *  13 points [-]

Hosting a website like this does come with both legal and social responsibility for it's content. External parties do make LW responsible for the content it hosts to the extend that it's not explictely made clear that LW denounces it.

So, Kamerad, I notice you personally have been lax in denouncing writings you -- hopefully -- may not want to be associated with. I trust you understand the consequences of being in the presence of... wrong ideas and not denouncing them forcefully. It really would be for the best if you were to correct that oversight on your part and properly denounce what you want to stand apart from. Using proper legalese, too, so that the proper authorities do not make any mistakes. And speaking of proper authorities, I hope you have notified them? It is good that you understand you bear "legal and social responsibility" for what happens in your presence. Do not forget your responsibility to denounce all the enemies of the people. Denounce early and often!