You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vladimir_Nesov comments on Meta: LW Policy: When to prohibit Alice from replying to Bob's arguments? - Less Wrong Discussion

-3 Post author: SilasBarta 12 September 2012 03:29AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (81)
Tags: meta rules

Comments (81)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 13 September 2012 07:34:30PM *  0 points [-]

You've exaggerated in a few places, as follows.

if one person dislikes a comment, it shouldn't be responded to?

It's mild evidence for the statement that it shouldn't be responded to.

This makes the site enforce a tyranny of the majority.

It's not clear that there is a "tyranny" with typical connotations, so the word shouldn't be used without clarification.

I don't think Alice should be prohibited from responding to Bob, ever. If two users create drama with back-and-forth responses, they have both chosen to do so.

Not "ever". The choices that affect many other people negatively should be discouraged, or their effect neutralized in some way, if possible.

Comment author: SilasBarta 13 September 2012 08:28:10PM 2 points [-]

This makes the site enforce a tyranny of the majority.

It's not clear that there is a "tyranny" with typical connotations, so the word shouldn't be used without clarification.

Hm, how about "philosopher-king of the majority"?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit