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.

MattG comments on Open thread, Oct. 5 - Oct. 11, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: MrMind 05 October 2015 06:50AM

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

Comments (346)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 07 October 2015 05:11:27PM 2 points [-]

There's a concept of "free speech absolutism" which basically says that if you are in a venue that encourages discourse, you should allow any speech.

You're not a deontologist, so you might look at that rule and say "but what about the consequences". But, that's not what a free speech absolutist would do.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 October 2015 05:16:23PM *  -1 points [-]

There's a concept of "free speech absolutism"

Unless you are arguing that you are a free speech absolutist, or, maybe, that LW should be run under such absolutism, I don't see the relevance. There are a LOT of fringe concepts around.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 October 2015 05:34:34PM 2 points [-]

I'm not a free speech absoluist, but I do think that Advanced Atheist should not ahve been banned for the reason of free speech.

Regardless of what I believe though, I wasn't arguing for or against it, I was answering Nancy's Question.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 October 2015 06:07:27PM *  -2 points [-]

I was answering Nancy's Question

And my point was and remains that you did not provide an answer. She didn't ask whether you can make up a deontological rule she violated. She asked whether there was a reasonable and practical rule you think she violated. Free speech absolutism isn't one. As to "but I do think", that's still not a deontological rule -- that's an ad hoc resolution which you happen to prefer.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 October 2015 06:41:20PM *  3 points [-]

Free speech absolutism absolutely is one. It's a common deontological rule that would have prevented AA from being banned.

All moral intuitions are ad hoc.

Comment author: Lumifer 07 October 2015 06:49:19PM *  0 points [-]

It's a common deontological rule

Common??

Show me a place where it is practiced. Spam folders do not count.

that would have prevented AA from being banned.

Actually, it would prevent all moderation. Would you like to learn one weird trick which would extend your manhood and make all women get naked and bring you offers to reclaim your wealth from a bank in Nigeria while stomping on pink commie faggots?

Comment author: [deleted] 07 October 2015 06:53:54PM 2 points [-]

Free speech absolutism only applies to the reasons for free speech (discourse). Spam does not count - objectionable opinions do.