Your post is hard to read. I recommend writing in shorter sentences and summarizing your main points at the end.
Furthermore, you should control the scope of your piece. You say at the beginning that you're going to make the case against censorship. Unfortunately only paragraphs 3 and 4 do that. Then you rant about tangential topics. You should also control the scope of your sentences and paragraphs. Your sentences jump all over the place. Try to make one sentence say one thing, and have one paragraph contain one small idea.
In paragraphs 3 and 4, you claim that we humans declared certain combinations of words to be inherently evil. Then you go on to argue that that's wrong because words don't inherently correspond to their meanings. This seems to be your argument against censorship. But you don't need to believe that certain combinations of words are inherently evil to be for censoring those words. You just need to believe that people hearing those words can result in things you don't want. You seem to anticipate this sort of response earlier on (it's hard to say, your writing isn't easy to comprehend), but dismiss the response because apparently it's irrational to feel emotions after seeing words. You think this because words don't inherently mean anything. Why you feel we should only feel emotions when seeing things that inherently mean something is never explained.
In the rest of the piece, you try to make the point that morality is a human construct. And you go off on tangential rants about some things you consider retarded. Profanity aside, most people here would agree that morality is to some extent arbitrary. What I don't see is why you believe that has anything to do with censorship.
Finally, I'm downvoting this mostly because it's very poorly written. It takes way too much effort to figure out what you probably meant and I would like to see less of this on this site. You say you haven't read a book since 8th grade. I'm sure you haven't.
Please tell me if I've misrepresented what you've written.
I wish I had seen this sooner. I wish I had had the chance to share some of my thoughts with Hoofwall before ze was banned. If you come back to reading this page, Hoofwall, I'd like you to know this: I've been where you are, and I'd like to show you a way out.
I know how the world of human interaction feels mysterious. It follows hundreds of unwritten rules that were invented before we were born, and we are expected to already know them, or to deduce them from just being around people. I know, it makes no sense.
We are confused; we are scared. We enter human society in a state of cluelessness as to what it is they want and how we can speak of what we want and how we will agree on anything and how we will help one another and how we will keep from hurting one another and it suddenly seems like it's forbidden to even speak of these fears out loud. We are supposed to have already figured it out.
So at first we approach cautiously, trying very hard to make as few mistakes as possible, and retreating in panic every time we step on the wrong place and activate the invisible laser alarm. Humans are so strange, and they don't want to make the effort to make themselves understood. They expect us to already know.
So after a while we start deducing our own rules, and making simplifications that work for us. At last there's some sense of structure, some explicit path for dealing with humans. And it feels like it works, but we can never be completely sure. Humans react in unpredictable ways, and we start fearing we missed some vital detail in the rules we invented to help ourselves navigate reality. Our rules conflict with the more ancient, more widespread, more complicated social rules which existed before us and envelop us. Some actions, gestures and words have a specific history; even if we were not taught them, we're still expected to already know. Yes, I know, humans make no sense.
And we are powerless against their rules. Humans seem to live happily with those rules; we need to adapt. Even if the rules we invented for ourselves seem to make more sense, it would be too much effort for all of humanity to unlearn and relearn. We need to adapt. We need to consider what already is. We need to deal with humans in their terms, because they're too lazy to accept any others. Even if those rules are also invented, even if no word has any "inherent" power in itself, the force of tradition is still strong, and it's easier for everyone to behave as if it were universal. I know, humans are stupid. But they don't take well to be told that. It has cost thousands of years to arrive at the rules humans have now, and when we try to show them why those rules make no sense, we're interpreted as if we were implying that all those thousands of years were a waste of effort. Humans look at us in disbelief, and ask, "How do you presume to know any better?" I know, humans are absurd.
But still, many of them seem happy. They seem to function perfectly fine with their complicated, invisible rules. Maybe it would be worth to know more about those rules, and why they exist in the form they have, and how humans benefit from them? It may be our best strategy; humans expect we address them in their language. Trying to use their language in our own private way will cause many misunderstandings. They don't know all the effort we have had to make to try to learn about their world; they will never know how much effort we make everyday to keep our sanity and still function; they don't see what we see in the words. Speaking to them in the same way we speak inside our minds will fail to show them what we see, because they don't live inside our heads. To make ourselves understood, we have to use words in a way humans are familiar with, and be mindful of the socially accepted ways of using words. Otherwise we'll all be speaking different languages. Even if we truly mean no offense, humans have already learned that some ways of speaking are used when offense is intended.
It's inevitable. Those rules existed before us. Humans are weird, and noisy, and erratic, and inconsistent. And more importantly, humans are in power. They get to decide how society works. Some of them have been trained to be sensitive to those of us with less than typical minds, and they try to do their best, but they don't live inside our heads and don't know what it's like to be always puzzled by everything. We need to adapt. We need to refrain from letting our anger take control. We need to be very patient with humans and remember that some of them may even be just as surprised as we are, and may get to see our point, if we really try to explain it.
I do, however, incorporate the words "retard", "nigger", and "faggot" into my vocabulary literally exclusively because it triggers humans and demonstrates the fact that the validity of one's argument and one's ability to defend themselves in argument does not matter to the human.
You demonstrate that humans can easily be driven insane. And then you are left with an insane human. In my experience, insane people aren't very helpful. I recommend trying to drive humans sane instead. It's vastly more difficult, but very productive if you can manage it.
Reputation has a lot to do with how people get treated. A bad reputation can mean anything from lost opportunities to being tortured to death.
One of the ways bad reputations are established and maintained is through insults, so it isn't irrational for people to react negatively to at least some insults.
You say you hate people, and you've given some evidence of that in your writing. Considering that we're people, is there any reason for us to want you on this blog?
You should do things that get good results. To a good approximation, that is what "rational" is used to mean around here.
Under this definition, if insulting people gets good results, it is rational to insult people. And if not insulting people gets good results, then it's rational to not insult people.
It's like playing League of Legends (or any other videogame that involves talking to teammates). Playing at the surface level, you just play the game by controlling your in-game pawn, and you talk to your teammates just based on what you want to say. But the things you say to your teammates are also directly impacting the game - the rational use of one's keyboard in this situation is to try to type things that increase your chances of victory, and not type things that decrease your chances.
I suggest for all who have a pet crank theory to share, get to the point quickly if you want any engagement with your ideas.
The quality of argument in this post is awful, but the closest thing to a main point that I can extract from it is "there is no rational reason for human nudity taboos", which is amusing because it's probably true. Not important, but still true. Also, hoofwall, how did you even find this website? It's not the sort of website that people who haven't picked up a book since 8th grade usually find, let alone care to post on.
I've banned hoofwall, so there's no point in asking them.
It's probably a good idea to ask new people how they found the site, just to find out how its reputation is spreading.
That was why I was curious: presumably they didn't get here through any of the usual channels, so LW's reputation has gone somewhere I wouldn't expect. Ah well, just as well they're gone, should've asked faster.
Mind you, I do not discriminate against literal retards, or blacks, or gays, or anything. I do, however, incorporate the words "retard", "nigger", and "faggot" into my vocabulary literally exclusively because it triggers humans and demonstrates the fact that the validity of one's argument and one's ability to defend themselves in argument does not matter to the human.
You have this almost exactly backwards. Discriminating against people, a.k.a., applying Baysian priors, is in fact rational, despite modern hangups against saying this publicly. In fact you probably do actually discriminate, i.e., use evidence about people in making decisions. For example, let's say you need someone to help you fix your computer, you probably want someone who's intelligent and knows about computers, thus you will not be happy if a literal retard shows up.
Up to a point. While you focus on the example the "literal retard" that's not where the problem comes in. The problem here is that people use the evidence more strongly than they should. Essentially this is the Screening off evidence problem. If I know say someone's standardized test scores and GPA that will be overwhelmingly more useful for predicting how intelligent they are than any weak prior based on race, gender or socioeconomic class. But humans often don't act that way.
Discriminating against people, a.k.a., applying Baysian priors, is in fact rational,
Discrimination of the kind that gets legislated against in fact isnt.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established certain tests for determining whether disparate (different) treatment of a group is discriminatory and illegal. If the treatment is based on what the law refers to as a “suspect classification,” the disparate treatment will be subject to “strict scrutiny.”A suspect classification is some characteristic of the victim, typically immutable (one that cannot be changed, such as age, gender or race), that has no bearing on the person’s ability to perform his or her job. Under current Supreme Court rulings, there are four traits that are considered suspect classifications: race, national origin, religion and alienage (the status of being an alien).
Forcing employers to judge employees by their ability to do their job is forcing them to be rational.
Except the burden is on the employer to "prove" (using only legal evidence) that the test is relevant.
"You can use evidence relevant to the person's ability to do their job" and "you can use evidence that you can 'prove' is relevant to the person's ability to do their job" (where 'prove' in quotes is not the same as actual proof) are very different.
I suppose I wouldn't want someone incompetent for a certain task to accomplish that certain task but what I meant was, I do not actively hate any of those things I mentioned as distinguished from just the idea of the human.
Then why did you use the word "discriminate" when you meant "hate"?
Words may ultimately be arbitrary in some sense, but a language constitutes a consensus mapping of arbitrary symbols to things in the real world, and if you want to have a conversation with someone, it's helpful to follow the mapping. Or worse use the same word for two different things and slip between the two meanings when making an argument, it is even possible to confuse oneself this way.
This problem is not restricted to you, in our culture there is a tendency to do this with the word "hate".
This is one of the only lesswrong posts I've ever read where I basically agree with nothing you wrote. You really should read the "rationality bible" though. Definitely before you keep posting here.
You seem to be opposed to the nature of your species. This can't be very good for your self-esteem.
So, I have next to no academic knowledge. I have literally not read or perhaps even picked up any book since eighth grade, which is where my formal education ended, and I turn 20 this year, but I am sitting on some theories pertaining to my understanding of rationality, and procrastinating about expressing them has gotten me here. I'd like to just propose my theory on why censorship is wrong, here. Please tell me whether or not you agree or disagree, and feel free to express anything else you feel you would like to in this thread. I miss bona fide argument, but this community seems way less hostile than the one community I was involved in elsewhere....
Also, I feel I should affirm again that my academic knowledge is almost entirely just not there... I know the LessWrong community has a ton of resources they turn to and indulge in, which is more or less a bible of rationality by which you all abide, but I have read or heard of none of it. I don't mean to offend you with my willful ignorance. Sorry. Also, sorry for possibly incorporating similes and stuff into my expression... I know many out there are on the autistic spectrum and can't comprehend it so I'll try to stop doing that unless I'm making a point.
Okay, so, since the following has been bothering me a lot since I joined this site yesterday and even made me think against titling this what I want, consider the written and spoken word. Humans literally decided as a species to sequence scribbles and mouth noises in an entirely arbitrary way, ascribe emotion to their arbitrary scribbles and mouth noises, and then claim, as a species, that very specific arbitrary scribbles and mouth noises are inherent evil and not to be expressed by any human. Isn't that fucking retarded?
I know what you may be thinking. You might be thinking, "wow, this hoofwall character just fucking wrote a fucking arbitrary scribble that my species has arbitrarily claimed to be inherent evil without first formally affirming, absolutely, that the arbitrary scribble he uttered could never be inherent evil and that writing it could never in itself do any harm. This dude obviously has no interest in successfully defending himself in argument". But fuck that. This is not the same as murdering a human and trying to conceive an excuse defending the act later. This is not the same as effecting the world in any way that has been established to be detrimental and then trying to defend the act later. This is literally sequencing the very letters of the very language the human has decided they are okay with and will use to express themselves in such a way that it reminds the indoctrinated and conditioned human of emotion they irrationally ascribe to the sequence of letters I wrote. This is possibly the purest argument conceivable for demonstrating superfluity in the human world, and the human psyche. There could never be an inherent correlation to one's emotionality and an arbitrary sequence of mouth noises or scribbles or whatever have you that exist entirely independent of the human. If one were to erase an arbitrary scribble that the human irrationally ascribes emotion to, the human will still have the capacity to feel the emotion the arbitrary scribble roused within them. The scribble is not literally the embodiment of emotionality. This is why censorship is retarded.
Mind you, I do not discriminate against literal retards, or blacks, or gays, or anything. I do, however, incorporate the words "retard", "nigger", and "faggot" into my vocabulary literally exclusively because it triggers humans and demonstrates the fact that the validity of one's argument and one's ability to defend themselves in argument does not matter to the human. I have at times proposed my entire argument, actually going so far to quantify the breadth of this universe as I perceive it, the human existence, emotionality, and right and wrong before even uttering a fuckdamn swear, but it didn't matter. Humans think plugging their ears and chanting a mantra of "lalala" somehow gives themselves a valid argument for their bullshit, but whatever. Affirming how irrational the human is is a waste of time. There are other forms of censorship I shout address, as well, but I suppose not before proposing what I perceive the breadth of everything less fundamental than the human to be.
It's probably very easy to deduce the following, but nothing can be proven to exist. Also, please do bear with my what are probably argument by assertion fallacies at the moment... I plan on defending myself before this post ends.
Any opinion any human conceives is just a consequence of their own perception, the likes of which appears to be a consequence of their physical form, the likes of which is a consequence of properties in this universe as we perceive it. We cannot prove our universe's existence beyond what we have access to in our universe as we perceive it, therefore we cannot prove that we exist. We can't prove that our understanding of existence is true existence; we can only prove, within our universe, that certain things appear to be in concurrence with the laws of this universe as we perceive it. We can propose for example that an apple we can see occupies space in this universe, but we can't prove that our universe actually exists beyond our understanding of what existence is. We can't go more fundamental than what composes our universe... We can't go up if we are mutually exclusive with the very idea of "up", or are an inferior consequence of "up" which is superior to us.
I really don't remember what else I would say after this but, I guess, without divulging how much I obsess about breaking emotionality into a science, I believe nudity can't be inherent evil either because it is literally the cause of us, the human, and we are necessary to be able to perceive good and evil in the first place. If humans were not extant to dominate the world and force it to tend to the end they wanted it to anything living would just live, breed, and die, and nothing would be inherently "good" or "evil". It would just be. Until something evolved if it would to gain the capacity to force distinctions between "good" and "evil" there would be no such constructs. We have no reason to believe there would be. I don't know how I can affirm that further. If nudity- and exclusively human nudity, mind you- were to be considered inherent evil that would mean that the human is inherent evil, that everything the human perceives is is inherent evil and that the human's understanding of "rationality" is just a poor, grossly-misled attempt at coping with the evil properties that they retain and is inherently worthless. Which I actually believe, but an opinion that contrary is literally satanism and fuck me if I think I'm going to be expounding all of that here. But fundamentally, human nudity cannot be inherent evil if the human's opinions are to be considered worth anything at all, and if you want to go less fundamental than that and approach it from a "but nudity makes me feel bad" standpoint, you can simply warp your perception of the world to force seeing or otherwise being reminded of things to be correlated to certain emotion within you. I'm autistic it seems so I obsess about breaking emotionality down to a science every day but this isn't the post to be talking about shit like that. In any case, you can't prove that the act of you seeing another human naked is literal evil, so fuck you and your worthless opinions.
Yeah... I don't know what else I could say here, or if censorship exists in forms other than preventing humans from being exposed to human nudity, or human-conceived words. I should probably assert as well that I believe the human's thinking that the inherent evil of human nudity somehow becomes okay to see when a human reaches the age of 18, or 21, or 16, or 12 depending on which subset of human you ask is retarded. Also, by "retarded" I do not literally mean "retarded". I use the word as a trigger word that's meant to embody and convey bad emotion the human decides they want to feel when they're exposed to it. This entire post is dripping with the grossest misanthropy but I'm interested in seeing what the responses to this are... By the way, if you just downvote me without expressing to me what you think I'm doing wrong, as far as I can tell you are just satisfied with vaguely masturbating your dissenting opinion you care not for even defining in my direction, so, whatever makes you sleep at night, if you do that... but you're wrong though, and I would argue that to the death.