I agree that “it’s currently impossible to discuss these issues honestly in public (from certain perspectives) without incurring unacceptable levels of political and PR risk, both for individual commenters and LW / the rationality community as a whole”.
Your proposed compromise to post this kind of content on another forum or on my personal blog runs counter to my intuitions. I have claimed in the past that moving an argument from LW to a private blog constitutes an escalation so hostile the mere threat of doing so constitutes adequate grounds for banning a user from LW. On the other hand, my claim occurred in a different context. Different problems require different solutions. [Edit: See comment]
I am not averse to posting sensitive topics on my personal blog instead of LW. In fact, I already do it with content I think be received badly on LW. If I was discussing <sensitive topic> in general then it would absolutely make sense to take it somewhere other than LW. If I’m discussing <sensitive topic> as it pertains to the rationality community then doing so off of LW feels icky, like insulting someone behind their back where they can’t respond.
What you propose (linkposting to a blog without posting the text directly on LW and then allowing comments on LW) is…fine I guess? It seems like superficial wallpaper to me. I am totally willing to put up superficial wallpaper if that is the established social norm. Coordination is precious. Wallpaper is cheap.
I don’t know how much the LW team prioritizes “thinking about how to enable such discussions to happen more safely on LW” but I do know that building infrastructure to enable sensitive discussions is on their radar. The last time I communicated directly with a member of the LW team we specifically discussed building an infrastructure to discuss technical infohazards. If there was a roadmap like “we have committee w working on plan x for a system y by which we can discuss politically hazards topics and we estimate it will be deployed no later than time z” then I think waiting for the deployment of such a system might make sense. Without such a roadmap, waiting for vaporware equals a code of silence.
Pretending problems don’t exist is epistemic malpractice. Justice delayed is justice denied. Yet I am unaware of anyone acting in bad faith—or even acting with meanness. This community is full of smart, curious people with good epistemic habits. The problem is just hard.
I have claimed in the past that moving an argument from LW to a private blog constitutes an escalation so hostile the mere threat of doing so constitutes adequate grounds for banning a user from LW
What’s the reasoning here?? I usually consider “not on this website” a de-escalation.
My original claim concerned an argumentative user who created a wall of shame for anyone who refused to argue with him. That was my point of reference for moving dialogue offsite. In retrospect, the situations are not analogous.
I agree that “it’s currently impossible to discuss these issues honestly in public (from certain perspectives) without incurring unacceptable levels of political and PR risk, both for individual commenters and LW / the rationality community as a whole”.
Your proposed compromise to post this kind of content on another forum or on my personal blog runs counter to my intuitions. I have claimed in the past that moving an argument from LW to a private blog constitutes an escalation so hostile the mere threat of doing so constitutes adequate grounds for banning a user from LW. On the other hand, my claim occurred in a different context. Different problems require different solutions.[Edit: See comment]I am not averse to posting sensitive topics on my personal blog instead of LW. In fact, I already do it with content I think be received badly on LW. If I was discussing <sensitive topic> in general then it would absolutely make sense to take it somewhere other than LW. If I’m discussing <sensitive topic> as it pertains to the rationality community then doing so off of LW feels icky, like insulting someone behind their back where they can’t respond.
What you propose (linkposting to a blog without posting the text directly on LW and then allowing comments on LW) is…fine I guess? It seems like superficial wallpaper to me. I am totally willing to put up superficial wallpaper if that is the established social norm. Coordination is precious. Wallpaper is cheap.
I don’t know how much the LW team prioritizes “thinking about how to enable such discussions to happen more safely on LW” but I do know that building infrastructure to enable sensitive discussions is on their radar. The last time I communicated directly with a member of the LW team we specifically discussed building an infrastructure to discuss technical infohazards. If there was a roadmap like “we have committee w working on plan x for a system y by which we can discuss politically hazards topics and we estimate it will be deployed no later than time z” then I think waiting for the deployment of such a system might make sense. Without such a roadmap, waiting for vaporware equals a code of silence.
Pretending problems don’t exist is epistemic malpractice. Justice delayed is justice denied. Yet I am unaware of anyone acting in bad faith—or even acting with meanness. This community is full of smart, curious people with good epistemic habits. The problem is just hard.
What’s the reasoning here?? I usually consider “not on this website” a de-escalation.
You make a good point. I have changed my mind.
My original claim concerned an argumentative user who created a wall of shame for anyone who refused to argue with him. That was my point of reference for moving dialogue offsite. In retrospect, the situations are not analogous.