How about “violent, abusive, or fraudulent acts”? That seems to cover most of what we’d want to ban.
I wouldn’t be as happy with limiting it to felonies; first of all, I know just enough about law to know that what is or isn’t a felony is a complicated and potentially counterintuitive question and likely varies substantially by jurisdiction; and second, there’s a lot of things that I wouldn’t want people advocating but aren’t violent or felonious. Doxxing your pseudonymous critics, for example, is legally a fairly light gray but strikes me as very bad behavior when seen through the lens of blog policy.
How about “violent, abusive, or fraudulent acts”? That seems to cover most of what we’d want to ban.
Starting a war is certainly a violent act. Do you want to prevent that kind of discussion on LW? No one is allowed to write a post that the US should start a war against Iran?
Well, you could modify that with “personally” if you want to be able to advocate state violence. Honestly, though, I’d be just as happy if that was forbidden; the recent discussion of the violence in Gaza certainly hasn’t seemed very productive.
the recent discussion of the violence in Gaza certainly hasn’t seemed very productive.
The problem is when you forbid exactly one side of the argument. Forum rules that allow criticism of a Israeli attack on Gaza but that don’t provide the ability to defend it, can lead to trouble when some people find their views unfairly censored.
On the other hand I think the incident that lead to us having a rule against advocation of violence is not covered in the provision of “personally”.
Though I’d note that when you’re discussing a war or violent political conflict, supporting any acts of any side can be construed as supporting violence, so this doesn’t look too politically slanted. It bars advocacy of aggressive war, terrorism, or violent revolution, but given that this isn’t a politics board trafficking in expansionist nationalism or exotic revolutionary ideologies, and that one of the fastest ways to mindkill someone is to advocate physically killing them or their buddies, I’m okay with that. (It’s also obviously noncentral to the rule, and I maintain that some degree of vagueness in forum policy is necessary if you want to get stuff done without every policy issue degenerating into unproductive trivia.)
Though I’d note that when you’re discussing a war or violent political conflict, supporting any acts of any side can be construed as supporting violence, so this doesn’t look too politically slanted.
You don’t need to support Hamas to criticize Israeli action in the region.
“Violent crime, abuse, or fraud”, then.
Okay, that looks fine to me.
It’s also obviously noncentral to the rule, and I maintain that some degree of vagueness in forum policy is necessary if you want to get stuff done without every policy issue degenerating into unproductive trivia
It makes sense to imagine what the rule actually does in practice. There are certain actions like killing your neighbor where it’s perfectly fine to allow moral arguments about why killing your neighbor is bad but still forbid people from advocating killing your neighbor. That’s because we have a consensus that killing your neighbor is bad.
If you start banning the advocation of violence in a political debate where one side favors violence and the other isn’t you are set up for drama.
You don’t need to support Hamas to criticize Israeli action in the region.
No, but—to move back to something a little less topical—you may recall that criticism of American action in Afghanistan and Iraq circa 2001 − 2011 was seen in certain circles as implicit support of Islamist violence. It wasn’t, of course, but if you’re trying to avoid drama you need to take perception into account as much as reality.
In this case, though, the spirit of the rule is less “avoid political drama”—we have a weaker norm against politics for that—and more “don’t advocate things that make us look like we’re all about to go Ted Kaczynski on someone’s ass”, which is why I feel that discussing war in its context is noncentral.
No, but—to move back to something a little less topical—you may recall that criticism of American action in Afghanistan and Iraq circa 2001 − 2011 was seen in certain circles as implicit support of Islamist violence
If you start banning people on forum for positions that they don’t explicitly argue but that you think they argue implicitly because of tribal associations than you have problems.
It wasn’t, of course
Yes. It wasn’t by any reasonable rational standard that a forum moderator is supposed to use to make moderating decisions. Don’t let yourself be mindkilled. Arguments aren’t soldiers. It’s quite easy to make an argument against invading other countries without arguing in favor of violence.
On reflection, you’re right; a prohibition on advocating violence doesn’t extend that far. Though I’d appreciate not having memes from the politics sequence flung at me.
How about “violent, abusive, or fraudulent acts”? That seems to cover most of what we’d want to ban.
I wouldn’t be as happy with limiting it to felonies; first of all, I know just enough about law to know that what is or isn’t a felony is a complicated and potentially counterintuitive question and likely varies substantially by jurisdiction; and second, there’s a lot of things that I wouldn’t want people advocating but aren’t violent or felonious. Doxxing your pseudonymous critics, for example, is legally a fairly light gray but strikes me as very bad behavior when seen through the lens of blog policy.
Starting a war is certainly a violent act. Do you want to prevent that kind of discussion on LW? No one is allowed to write a post that the US should start a war against Iran?
Well, you could modify that with “personally” if you want to be able to advocate state violence. Honestly, though, I’d be just as happy if that was forbidden; the recent discussion of the violence in Gaza certainly hasn’t seemed very productive.
The problem is when you forbid exactly one side of the argument. Forum rules that allow criticism of a Israeli attack on Gaza but that don’t provide the ability to defend it, can lead to trouble when some people find their views unfairly censored.
On the other hand I think the incident that lead to us having a rule against advocation of violence is not covered in the provision of “personally”.
“Violent crime, abuse, or fraud”, then.
Though I’d note that when you’re discussing a war or violent political conflict, supporting any acts of any side can be construed as supporting violence, so this doesn’t look too politically slanted. It bars advocacy of aggressive war, terrorism, or violent revolution, but given that this isn’t a politics board trafficking in expansionist nationalism or exotic revolutionary ideologies, and that one of the fastest ways to mindkill someone is to advocate physically killing them or their buddies, I’m okay with that. (It’s also obviously noncentral to the rule, and I maintain that some degree of vagueness in forum policy is necessary if you want to get stuff done without every policy issue degenerating into unproductive trivia.)
You don’t need to support Hamas to criticize Israeli action in the region.
Okay, that looks fine to me.
It makes sense to imagine what the rule actually does in practice. There are certain actions like killing your neighbor where it’s perfectly fine to allow moral arguments about why killing your neighbor is bad but still forbid people from advocating killing your neighbor. That’s because we have a consensus that killing your neighbor is bad.
If you start banning the advocation of violence in a political debate where one side favors violence and the other isn’t you are set up for drama.
No, but—to move back to something a little less topical—you may recall that criticism of American action in Afghanistan and Iraq circa 2001 − 2011 was seen in certain circles as implicit support of Islamist violence. It wasn’t, of course, but if you’re trying to avoid drama you need to take perception into account as much as reality.
In this case, though, the spirit of the rule is less “avoid political drama”—we have a weaker norm against politics for that—and more “don’t advocate things that make us look like we’re all about to go Ted Kaczynski on someone’s ass”, which is why I feel that discussing war in its context is noncentral.
If you start banning people on forum for positions that they don’t explicitly argue but that you think they argue implicitly because of tribal associations than you have problems.
Yes. It wasn’t by any reasonable rational standard that a forum moderator is supposed to use to make moderating decisions. Don’t let yourself be mindkilled. Arguments aren’t soldiers. It’s quite easy to make an argument against invading other countries without arguing in favor of violence.
On reflection, you’re right; a prohibition on advocating violence doesn’t extend that far. Though I’d appreciate not having memes from the politics sequence flung at me.