I strongly downvoted this post because I want to discourage this type of post on LW (at least for now), as 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. (I strongly upvoted one of your other posts to even out your karma.) I wish the LW team would prioritize thinking about how to enable such discussions to happen more safely on LW, but until that’s possible, I’d rather not see LW host discussions where only some perspectives can be represented.
(If you disagree with this, perhaps one compromise could be to post this kind of content on another forum or your personal blog, link to it from LW, and encourage people to only comment on the original post, to put more distance between the two and reduce risks.)
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 wish the LW team would prioritize thinking about how to enable such discussions to happen more safely on LW
One way to do this would be to create a tag for socially risky topics, and make posts marked as such visible only when logged in, to accounts that have existed for more than ‘t’ time with at least ‘k’ of karma. The original poster would be able to add the tag to their own post, but not remove it unless they themselves meet the minimum ‘tk’ threshold. Others would be able to add or remove it only if they themselves have those same stats. And comments made under a topic thus marked would by default inherit the same tag and properties. This would make it possible to have such conversations with little risk, with further improvements possible.
This sounds like an extension of how mindkilling topics like politics are (with a few reasonable exceptions like Zvi’s series on COVID) already restricted to blogposts. It has the advantage of keeping things controlled without shutting down conversation entirely. It has the disadvantage of adding complexity.
I think your proposal is good enough to be worth considering or possibly iterating upon.
Thank you for courteously considering my overall karma. I have created a dedicated comment for you to upvote so you can balance things out without upvoting an undeserving post or comment.
post this kind of content on another forum or your personal blog
This is still a good idea either way, compromise or no compromise. (Separately, the comment thing also allows for the OP to have comment control as desired.)
I strongly downvoted this post because I want to discourage this type of post on LW (at least for now), as 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. (I strongly upvoted one of your other posts to even out your karma.) I wish the LW team would prioritize thinking about how to enable such discussions to happen more safely on LW, but until that’s possible, I’d rather not see LW host discussions where only some perspectives can be represented.
(If you disagree with this, perhaps one compromise could be to post this kind of content on another forum or your personal blog, link to it from LW, and encourage people to only comment on the original post, to put more distance between the two and reduce risks.)
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.
One way to do this would be to create a tag for socially risky topics, and make posts marked as such visible only when logged in, to accounts that have existed for more than ‘t’ time with at least ‘k’ of karma. The original poster would be able to add the tag to their own post, but not remove it unless they themselves meet the minimum ‘tk’ threshold. Others would be able to add or remove it only if they themselves have those same stats. And comments made under a topic thus marked would by default inherit the same tag and properties. This would make it possible to have such conversations with little risk, with further improvements possible.
This sounds like an extension of how mindkilling topics like politics are (with a few reasonable exceptions like Zvi’s series on COVID) already restricted to blogposts. It has the advantage of keeping things controlled without shutting down conversation entirely. It has the disadvantage of adding complexity.
I think your proposal is good enough to be worth considering or possibly iterating upon.
Thank you for courteously considering my overall karma. I have created a dedicated comment for you to upvote so you can balance things out without upvoting an undeserving post or comment.
This is still a good idea either way, compromise or no compromise. (Separately, the comment thing also allows for the OP to have comment control as desired.)