= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nornagest comments on [meta] Future moderation and investigation of downvote abuse cases, or, I don't want to deal with this stuff - 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
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (52)
No, but -- to move back to something a little less topical -- you may recall that criticism of American action in Afghanistan and Iraq circa 2001 - 2011 was seen in certain circles as implicit support of Islamist violence. It wasn't, of course, but if you're trying to avoid drama you need to take perception into account as much as reality.
In this case, though, the spirit of the rule is less "avoid political drama" -- we have a weaker norm against politics for that -- and more "don't advocate things that make us look like we're all about to go Ted Kaczynski on someone's ass", which is why I feel that discussing war in its context is noncentral.
If you start banning people on forum for positions that they don't explicitly argue but that you think they argue implicitly because of tribal associations than you have problems.
Yes. It wasn't by any reasonable rational standard that a forum moderator is supposed to use to make moderating decisions. Don't let yourself be mindkilled. Arguments aren't soldiers. It's quite easy to make an argument against invading other countries without arguing in favor of violence.
On reflection, you're right; a prohibition on advocating violence doesn't extend that far. Though I'd appreciate not having memes from the politics sequence flung at me.