= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco 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)
Counter-proposal:
We don't contemplate proposals of violence against identifiable people because we're not assholes.
I mean, seriously, what the fuck, people?
Generalizations: on average accurate. In specific wrong.
Yes, this is the unstated policy we've all been working under up until this point, and it's worked. Which is why it's so irrational to propose a censorship rule.
First: "Rational" and "irrational" describe mental processes, not conclusions. A social rule can be useful or useless, beneficial or harmful, well- or ill-defended ....
("If deleting posts that propose violence would benefit Less Wrong, I want to believe that deleting posts that propose violence would benefit Less Wrong. If deleting posts that propose violence would not benefit Less Wrong, I want not to believe that deleting posts that propose violence would ...")
Second: Consider the difference between "we're not assholes" and "we don't want to look like assholes".
Or between "I will cooperate" and "I want you to think that I will cooperate." A defector can rationally conclude the latter, but not the former (since it is false of defectors).