= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Qiaochu_Yuan 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)
Okay, but 1) the fact that you post on LW is already evidence that you're not representative of the general population in various ways, and 2) communist revolution is at least an idea that people learn about in college, and it's not too unusual to hear a certain type of person say stuff like that. I had in mind the subject of the deleted post; if a typical person heard someone talking like that, their first reaction would be that that person is crazy, and with a reasonable choice of priors this would be a reasonable inference to make.
I haven't read the deleted post. If someone who knew what the case is about would write it to me via private message I would appreciate it.
The communist revolution is a classic example of an idea that involves the advocation of illegal violence against a specific group of people. There are certainly internet forums where that kind of political speech isn't welcome and will get deleted.
On LessWrong I think that's a position that should be allowed to be argued. Moldbuggian advocacy of a coup d'état should also be allowed.
Some people might think that you are crazy if you argue Moldbuggianism on a first date. At the same time I think that idea should be within the realm of permissable discourse on LessWrong.
If LW-compatible people are more welcoming of discussion of violence than the general population, then the bad PR would affect them less than it would other people, so we should care less about bad PR.