= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
Comments (857)
It is certainly a comment I continue to endorse, upon reflection. I give the benefit of the doubt to the downvoters and assume that they voted out of ignorance of the context - especially given that the most important context includes multiple endorsement of an external source (appropriately entitled The Necessity of Domestic Violence). If I assumed that they were familiar with the context I would then have to conclude that they are executing poor judgement and taking a highly offensive political stance.
In most social situations I am in if someone on one hand endorsed domestic violence and then a few statements later endorses bestiality I would expect an (R)SPCA joke almost instantly - the exceptions being those circumstances where far stronger social sanctions have already been put in motion against the unacceptable political expression.
What's funny is that I liked your comment even before I knew about the domestic violence thing. It read more as silly and sarcastic than insulting.
Expect - probably.
But your joke appears to be (slightly) punishing Aurini for making a meaningful contribution. He probably deserves the joke, but I think people could plausibly think that discouraging meaningful contribution is bad for the social norms of this community. That can be true even if the particular commenter is not deserving of the grace that this sort of policy ends up providing.
I would punish Aurini for the contribution he made recently, if I had the power to do so and if there was no such thing as 'negative externalities'. Or, rather, I would take take actions to prevent more such contributions and those actions could be considered equivalent to 'punishment' even though the intent is far more crudely practical. (This is all based on the premise that the 'meaning' of the 'contributions' is the most misguided and toxic influence on the site that I recall seeing. I accept that you do not share that premise.)
But really, I think I'd have made an SPCA reference even if I were Aurini himself.
I hear you saying that Aurini deserves punishment. I agree that his statements about the acceptability of violence are morally wrong and unlikely to achieve the outcomes he says he desires. Further, I'm extremely upset about his use of normative statements disguised as facts. Taken together, the posting of those types of statements makes the community look bad.
Nonetheless, the norm of the community is that each post stands on its own merits. Punishing Aurini in an unrelated post is like going through and down-voting everything Will Newsome says, regardless of individual merit. In other words, it is possible that your joke would be down-voted by people who completely agree with you about the total lack of value of Aurini's posts on domestic violence. (Btw - I'm not a down-voter).
It occurs to me while writing this post that some of our disagreement may be based on the fact that you think the joke is very funny, while it falls flat for me. (shrug). This whole issue isn't a big deal to me, just thought you'd find my perspective useful (since it differs from Blueberry's and CharlieSheen's).
More obligatory irony than funniness. An environment where those two claims are made together but not combined feels wrong.
That particular source is actually not as bad as the name would suggest, since it refers to the guy fighting back and standing up for himself when he's already in an abusive relationship and financially unable to leave. He doesn't recommend it to people in general.