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.

VoiceOfRa 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (346)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (346)

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

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 13 October 2015 08:35:31PM 4 points [-]

Sure. I used it in the sense of: "aa is uncommonly out of synch with the contemporary sensibility about personal freedom,

So expressing contrarian opinions is grounds for banning?

and refuses to explain why he believes what he believes".

Except he did explain why he believes what he does.

Comment author: MrMind 14 October 2015 07:50:47AM 1 point [-]

So expressing contrarian opinions is grounds for banning?

As always, it's a matter of degree and interaction on how well argumented your position is.
So yes, you can express a sufficiently contrarian opinion that would lead to banning. "All women should be treated as sex slaves", for example, is such an opinion.

Except he did explain why he believes what he does.

I asked aa at least twice, possibly more, what evidence he had for his assertions and got nothing back. Can you point me to a place where he did so? A post mortem would still be useful.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 14 October 2015 08:49:36PM 2 points [-]

So yes, you can express a sufficiently contrarian opinion that would lead to banning. "All women should be treated as sex slaves", for example, is such an opinion.

But I don't think even you would argue that the reason for banning that opinion is its contrariness.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit