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.

Plasmon comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 December 2012 09:00PM

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

Comments (457)

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

Comment author: Plasmon 25 December 2012 06:48:11PM *  -1 points [-]

It can also be called division of labour. My comparative advantage may lie in bashing Wiggin heads or crafting arguments for why bashing Wiggin heads is good or organizing the logistics so our heads don't get bashed by Wiggins so that we can bash more of theirs.

Yes. The problem is that this is exactly the rationalisation that someone would use if it weren't true. Then again, it might be true.

We need to distinguish

  • (type A) Someone wants to rise in power within a certain group, advocates violence against a hated out-group, and remains largely protected from legal consequences himself because he doesn't actually commit any violent acts. When asked, he claims his non-action is due to division-of-labour-reasoning.
  • (type B) Someone actually thinks violence against a certain out-group is a good thing (in the greater good sense), and doesn't commit any violent acts himself based on division-of-labour-reasoning. When asked about his motivations, he is not (easily?) distinguishable from (A).

What's the difference? The difference is that (type A) should be discouraged from encouraging violence. If a (type A) successfully encourages a group of followers to commit violence against a hated out-group , people get hurt. This was not the (type A)'s intention, it's just an unfortunate side effect that he doesn't really care about.

(type B)s, on the other hand, should be listened to, and their arguments weighed carefully. For the greater good, you know. In fact this seems like a good reason for (type B)s to signal that they themselves do not in any way profit from the violence.

What are your priors? More (type B)? More (type A)?

I don't see from a consquentalist stand point what is so different between me pyhsically bashing a Wiggin head, pressing a button that activates a machine that bashes as Wiggin head and manipulating someone into bashing a Wiggin head.

You said it yourself : not being the one who actually commits the violent acts provides some legal protection. Your not ending up in jail is a consequence. (I don't actually know what a Wiggin head is, I assume "bashing a Wiggin head" is some socially unaccepted form of violence).

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 25 December 2012 11:40:58PM 1 point [-]

See here: wiggin