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.

TimS comments on Open thread, Jan. 18 - Jan. 24, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 18 January 2016 09:42AM

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

Comments (201)

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

Comment author: Vaniver 29 January 2016 09:35:26PM *  0 points [-]

I am not buying this argument in the context of national security, why in the world would it apply here?

There's an asymmetry between discussing flaws in the admin's plans and discussing flaws in the attacker's plans, which is significant enough that the first can be a public service and the second a public disservice.

The national security analog of the former is pointing out security holes, and the analog of the latter is giving helpful advice to terrorists.

Besides, it's not like we're talking about non-obvious things.

If it is truly obvious, then there is nothing to be gained by saying it; if it is not obvious, then there is something lost by saying it.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 January 2016 09:44:15PM 0 points [-]

There's an asymmetry between discussing flaws in the admin's plans and discussing flaws in the attacker's plan

Not quite, the defence and the attack are a matching zero-sum pair. Aiding one disadvantages the other.

The national security analog of the former is pointing out security holes, and the analog of the latter is giving helpful advice to terrorists.

Pointing out security holes is routinely called "giving helpful advice to terrorists" (or other members of the unholy triad, child pornographers and drug dealers).