A political figure was a high-ranking government official and involved with causing a politically charged, negatively-viewed event. This figure was not immediately punished for their cimes. Later, a group violated several heuristics most humans hold about concepts like fairness and justice, and punished this person for their crimes.
This act both violated some norms about fairness, and satisfied other norms on fairness. I hold a polarising view about the relative worth of the violations and satisfactions.
Later, another political figure was a high-ranking government official and involved with causing a politically charged, negatively-viewed event. This figure was not immediately punished for their crimes. If, hypothetically, a group violated the same set of heuristics most humans hold about fairness and justice, and punished this person for their crimes, would you hold the same polarising view on this matter as the view I held on the previous matter?
Note: On LessWrong, we avoid politics where we can. This is your post, de-politicised.
It is done because I feel that much of the planned impact of this post rests on challenging implicit assumption of political leaning: Holocaust bad, America good. You should at least be made aware that most LessWrongers are not subject to this assumption.
(Much) more generally: examine where your question marks are. If they follow facts, this post fits in Discussion. If they precede convincing logical and rational(1) arguments for the questioned positions, this post belongs in Main. If they follow descriptive questions (i.e. you are genuinely curious about the distribution of beliefs in the LessWrong community) it belongs in Discussion with a prominent link to a survey. If—as in your case, it does—follow a prescriptive question (would you hold the same polarising view as me?), then it does not belong on LessWrong.
This concludes the exhaustive explanation of why you were downvoted.
(1): No I will not taboo that term, it belongs here.
This concludes the exhaustive explanation of why you were downvoted.
I didn’t ask why the post was downvoted. I didn’t have to. It was by design.
I feel that much of the planned impact of this post rests on challenging implicit assumption of political leaning: Holocaust bad, America good.
Your assumptions are incorrect. The planned impact of the post rested rather on the implicit assumptions that Censorship bad, Open Debate good.
Please review this post, and its comments, for the backstory. If you’re still not clear on what’s going on here, you should probably PM me so I don’t have to spoil the joke any further here on the thread.
A political figure was a high-ranking government official and involved with causing a politically charged, negatively-viewed event. This figure was not immediately punished for their cimes. Later, a group violated several heuristics most humans hold about concepts like fairness and justice, and punished this person for their crimes.
This act both violated some norms about fairness, and satisfied other norms on fairness. I hold a polarising view about the relative worth of the violations and satisfactions.
Later, another political figure was a high-ranking government official and involved with causing a politically charged, negatively-viewed event. This figure was not immediately punished for their crimes. If, hypothetically, a group violated the same set of heuristics most humans hold about fairness and justice, and punished this person for their crimes, would you hold the same polarising view on this matter as the view I held on the previous matter?
Note: On LessWrong, we avoid politics where we can. This is your post, de-politicised.
It is done because I feel that much of the planned impact of this post rests on challenging implicit assumption of political leaning: Holocaust bad, America good. You should at least be made aware that most LessWrongers are not subject to this assumption.
(Much) more generally: examine where your question marks are. If they follow facts, this post fits in Discussion. If they precede convincing logical and rational(1) arguments for the questioned positions, this post belongs in Main. If they follow descriptive questions (i.e. you are genuinely curious about the distribution of beliefs in the LessWrong community) it belongs in Discussion with a prominent link to a survey. If—as in your case, it does—follow a prescriptive question (would you hold the same polarising view as me?), then it does not belong on LessWrong.
This concludes the exhaustive explanation of why you were downvoted.
(1): No I will not taboo that term, it belongs here.
I didn’t ask why the post was downvoted. I didn’t have to. It was by design.
Your assumptions are incorrect. The planned impact of the post rested rather on the implicit assumptions that Censorship bad, Open Debate good.
Please review this post, and its comments, for the backstory. If you’re still not clear on what’s going on here, you should probably PM me so I don’t have to spoil the joke any further here on the thread.
Ah, I completely missed that. I should remember, in future, that LessWrong operates at one level higher than I think it does.