= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - 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)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (457)
Would it censor a discussion of, say, compelling an AI researcher by all means necessary to withhold their research from, say, the military?
Yes. This seems like yet another example of "First of all, it's a bad fucking idea, second of all, talking about it makes everyone else look bad, and third of all, if hypothetically it was actually a good idea you'd still be a fucking juvenile idiot for blathering about it on the public Internet." What part of "You fail conspiracies forever" is so hard for people to understand? Talk like this serves no purpose except to serve as fodder for people who claim that <rationalist idea X> leads to violence and is therefore false, and your comment shall be duly deleted once this policy is put into place.
I don't see how this comment even fits the proposed policy, except under a motivatedly-broad reading of "by all means necessary"
Wikipedia thinks otherwise:
I was unaware of that connotation. But I don't think it changes the equation. There's a million different ways to interpret "by all means necessary", the vast majority of which would not be construed to include violence. If this were a forum in which Satre/Malcolm X references were the norm, then that would be different. But it isn't.
I and the one person currently in the room with me immediately took "by all means necessary" to suggest violence. I think you're in a minority in how you interpret it.
OK, I'll update on that.
"By all means necessary" very much means "don't hesitate to use violence". When that phrase isn't required to grant sanction to violence (as when used in military orders), it instead gives sanction to whatever acts aren't already implied (such as the violation of military protocol and/or use of prohibited weapons/tactics).
Just checked with my houseguest; his interpretation is also "a call to violence".