One meta-hazard would be that “community hazards” could end up defined far too broadly, encompassing anything that might make some people feel uncomfortable and simply become a defense for sacred values of the people assessing what should constitute “community hazards”.
Or worse, that the arguments for one set of positions could get classified as “community hazards” such that, to use a mind-killing example, all the pro-life arguments get classified as “community hazards” while the pro-choice ones do not.
So it’s probably best to be exceptionally conservative with what you’re willing to classify as a “community hazard”
Good point about that. I think it’s a matter of trade-offs—my take is that anything that an aspiring rationalist I trust classifies as a community hazard is a community hazard. For instance, one rationalist I know had a traumatic experience with immigration into the US, and as a result has PTSD around immigration discussions. This makes immigration discussions a community hazard issue in our local LW meetup, due to her particular background. It wouldn’t be in another setting. So we hold immigration discussions when she’s not there.
However, the broad point is taken, and I think especially the issue of arguments for one set of positions being classified as a community hazard—important to keep this in mind to prevent groupthink and become an echo chamber.
If something that is tough for even a single member to handle counts as a “community hazard” then this is starting to sound more like safe spaces under a different name rather than what I thought you meant with the example of “accessory after the fact” murder thing.
Can you elaborate? As I said, it doesn’t mean we don’t talk about immigration, just not around her. Similarly, if someone had an eating disorder, we wouldn’t talk about triggering stuff in front of her.
That somewhat necessitates either the group remaining very small or discussions only happening in small subsets since in any non-tiny group there will be one or more people with issues around pretty much anything.
It also wouldn’t seem to work terribly well in long term and written discussions such as the ones on LW which can run for years with random members of the public joining and leaving part way through.
So the “accessory after the fact” murder example is a very clear and explicit example of where major penalties can be inflicted on pretty much anyone by providing them with particular information which forces them either into certain actions or into danger. 50%+ of the community present are going to be subject to those hazards whether or not they even understand them.
Safe space avoidance of triggers on the other hand are extremely personal, one person out of thousands can suddenly be used as a reason for why the community shouldn’t talk about ,say, Rabies and since most LW communication is long term and permanent there is no such thing as “while they’re not in the room”. The discussion remains there when they are present even if the discussion took place while they were not.
Of course you could limit your safe spaces to verbal communication in small, personal, community events where you only talk about Rabies on the days when ,say, Jessica isn’t there but then you have the situation where the main LW community could have a recurring and popular Rabies Symptoms Explained megathread.
At which point you don’t so much have a “community hazard” as a polite avoidance of one topic with a few of your drinking buddies including one who isn’t really part of the central community because they can’t handle the discussion there but is part of your local hangout.
I hear you about difference between verbal and online communication.
The specific point I made above was regarding in-person communication. I hope I made clear that community hazards can be talked about, but carefully, in those settings, depending on the skill levels of the people involved in rational communication.
Regarding online communication, I generally see it as quite fine to talk about a potentially triggering topic on LW, as long as the article is clearly labeled as such, and people can choose not to click on it. There are exceptions where talking about a topic takes down Chesterton’s fences, such as PUA, etc., but the suggestions I made above don’t apply to them so much.
One meta-hazard would be that “community hazards” could end up defined far too broadly, encompassing anything that might make some people feel uncomfortable and simply become a defense for sacred values of the people assessing what should constitute “community hazards”.
Or worse, that the arguments for one set of positions could get classified as “community hazards” such that, to use a mind-killing example, all the pro-life arguments get classified as “community hazards” while the pro-choice ones do not.
So it’s probably best to be exceptionally conservative with what you’re willing to classify as a “community hazard”
Good point about that. I think it’s a matter of trade-offs—my take is that anything that an aspiring rationalist I trust classifies as a community hazard is a community hazard. For instance, one rationalist I know had a traumatic experience with immigration into the US, and as a result has PTSD around immigration discussions. This makes immigration discussions a community hazard issue in our local LW meetup, due to her particular background. It wouldn’t be in another setting. So we hold immigration discussions when she’s not there.
However, the broad point is taken, and I think especially the issue of arguments for one set of positions being classified as a community hazard—important to keep this in mind to prevent groupthink and become an echo chamber.
If something that is tough for even a single member to handle counts as a “community hazard” then this is starting to sound more like safe spaces under a different name rather than what I thought you meant with the example of “accessory after the fact” murder thing.
Can you elaborate? As I said, it doesn’t mean we don’t talk about immigration, just not around her. Similarly, if someone had an eating disorder, we wouldn’t talk about triggering stuff in front of her.
That somewhat necessitates either the group remaining very small or discussions only happening in small subsets since in any non-tiny group there will be one or more people with issues around pretty much anything.
It also wouldn’t seem to work terribly well in long term and written discussions such as the ones on LW which can run for years with random members of the public joining and leaving part way through.
So the “accessory after the fact” murder example is a very clear and explicit example of where major penalties can be inflicted on pretty much anyone by providing them with particular information which forces them either into certain actions or into danger. 50%+ of the community present are going to be subject to those hazards whether or not they even understand them.
Safe space avoidance of triggers on the other hand are extremely personal, one person out of thousands can suddenly be used as a reason for why the community shouldn’t talk about ,say, Rabies and since most LW communication is long term and permanent there is no such thing as “while they’re not in the room”. The discussion remains there when they are present even if the discussion took place while they were not.
Of course you could limit your safe spaces to verbal communication in small, personal, community events where you only talk about Rabies on the days when ,say, Jessica isn’t there but then you have the situation where the main LW community could have a recurring and popular Rabies Symptoms Explained megathread.
At which point you don’t so much have a “community hazard” as a polite avoidance of one topic with a few of your drinking buddies including one who isn’t really part of the central community because they can’t handle the discussion there but is part of your local hangout.
I hear you about difference between verbal and online communication.
The specific point I made above was regarding in-person communication. I hope I made clear that community hazards can be talked about, but carefully, in those settings, depending on the skill levels of the people involved in rational communication.
Regarding online communication, I generally see it as quite fine to talk about a potentially triggering topic on LW, as long as the article is clearly labeled as such, and people can choose not to click on it. There are exceptions where talking about a topic takes down Chesterton’s fences, such as PUA, etc., but the suggestions I made above don’t apply to them so much.