= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on The Fable of the Burning Branch - 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 (175)
I find this request to have worse implications than the post itself, because if this request is serious, it destroys discourse. Normally when discussing a topic, one must leave things out. Requiring people to justify leaving things out amounts to "every person is banworthy".
This post is of a quality that it harms the community by driving valuable people away. As such I think it does make sense to ask the author to justify his choices. If we want a LW 2.0 where the people who left LW come back I don't think that's compatible with allowing posts like this.
That's what the downvote system is for, and it is working perfectly fine. Moderation is for abusive behaviors.
As for Richard, if he's going to be offended that a heavily-downvoted post exists, well, good riddance. You want a good culture, it doesn't start by putting the Heckler's Veto on a shrine and worshipping it.
I don't think Richard is the only one driven away by posts like this. In general people who are willing to have their public identities linked to this website are more likely driven away because they don't want to be associated with that kind of content. It furthermore produces a climate unwelcoming to women.
After a certain point, no one wants to be associated with all the content + comments occurring and everyone generally feels unwelcome and judged. This is the worst case scenario for a discussion and a very strong reason to not have political discourse here.
Not allowing posts which don't pass some arbitrary threshold that smells of social justice will drive more people away.
I think it's one thing to allow every position to be argued. It's another thing to allow any position to be proposed with a story while the author tries to escape arguing for it.
NancyLebovitz requests here that the author argues for the position he takes.
I haven't noticed any attempts to escape. I would like to suggest they are products of your imagination.
He escaped into the medium of a parable.
/rolls eyes
So, parables are now non grata on LW? Perhaps you'd like to revise the Sequences and take all parables out of it, too?
I think the plural is non gratae. (SCNR.)
Yes, but if you want to get that technical, the correct form depends on the gender of the latin word for "parable". The two options are parabola (which has the "parable" meaning only in late Latin, I think) and fabula ( == fable, e.g. Aesop's). Luckily, both are feminine so non gratae is correct.
Although you can make an argument that the English word "parables" has the neuter gender and so it still should be non grata :-)
I was thinking of feminine parabola, but...
:-)
That's not what I said. I think that when it comes to emotionally charged topics it's important to focus on on explicit discussing of arguments.
Post shouldn't be banned because just because they spread a certain opinion or just because they use a certain style but posts that do voice problematic opinions in a non-fact based style shouldn't be here.
How about you start with Three Worlds Collide, then?