I think people blatantly lie and objectify all the time with no social sanction.

Yes, these are both examples where the social norm is more lax than what people tend to say. Advocating certain kinds of stricter ethical standards than are actually enforced is mainly social signalling of the sort that Robin Hanson likes to discuss.

As a side note, one of the common "geek" social failings is to take stated ethical standards at face value, especially with regard to lying.

I'm not sure what you're getting at otherwise. As I've stated elsewhere, objectifying people in economic contexts is socially permitted (except in extreme cases), while objectifying in "social peer" contexts is of borderline status, depending on (class/region/&c.) fluctuations in norms.

I think that you're too trusting of society's verbalization of morality and that this is rather different from what people actually accept.

My metric is actually closer to "what are people embarrassed to admit" or "what will cause others to impose a social censure". This seems to best fit the concept of community norms. What people say, and what people do when they don't expect to get caught, may of course diverge (usually in opposing directions).

ETA: In case it wasn't clear, I'm not advocating social norms in the general case, just noting their existence and arguing for the reasonability of a specific norm.

As a quick aside, avoid relying on any distinction between the terms "morality" and "ethics". I don't think there is any coherent, universally agreed-upon difference and inventing one tends to lead to confusion.

Community norms are inherently an appeal to (diffuse) authority, yes, and have little explanatory power; hence my noting it as a non-answer in the comment you linked to. Nevertheless, the norms objectively exist even if their foundations may be arbitrary.

The "real" answer, from my perspective, is that it's still a (mildly) inethical way to interact with people, but some combination of your "its part of his job" and a more general argument for impersonal economic transactions providing social benefits in the big picture outweighs it in many cases. On this basis, I accept the status quo of the afforementioned social norms.

Social acceptability means roughly "adhering to commonly accepted ethical norms". A statement of what is about people's opinions about oughts, in other words.

There are plenty of natural behaviors and impulses, in the sense of expected based on human psychology, that are nevertheless not socially acceptable in many contexts; casual violence in most civilized societies, for instance.

I hope you understand that the issue is not what is natural, but what is ethical.

If Alicorn goes beyond discouraging certain modes of expression and starts discouraging certain ideas from being expressed at all, that's beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. Hope she thinks so too.

I mostly agree with your comment, but:

There's a touch of hypocrisy in that.

I'm not seeing it. There doesn't seem to be any contradiction between "expressing absolute moral judgements" and "adding qualifiers and disclaimers". Perhaps you can point it out more clearly?

Is account deletion supposed to delete your old posts? Why do you want that?

That is why I am going to delete my account and sign up with a different account name, which I will not tell anyone. BTW, the account deletion feature isn't working...