Would you prefer that I had not posted for that reason?
Yes, but not very strongly. Given that your post is overall it positive karma it’s however alright. Karma votes
show you whether a majority thinks your post has a place or hasn’t. Votes decide what threads have a place in discussion and which haven’t.
Sort of like declaring a police state to protect the nominal freedoms of a Constitution.
Online communities are not states with guaranteed freedom of speech.
In general, t seems...backwards to restrain the things the community talks about out of concern for how others will view the community as a result.
It’s not only about the perception of outsiders. It’s also about what the people in this community think.
Online communities are not states with guaranteed freedom of speech.
Yes. I was making a poor analogy. Isn’t the value of lesswrong that we are able to explore ideas things that are not admissible elsewhere for lack of interest, lack of training, or direct aversion? (This is obviously contestable. I invite you to contest it.) If the fundamental value of the community is compromised out of concern for its reputation, then the reputation is of increasingly less value.
Isn’t the value of lesswrong that we are able to explore ideas things that are not admissible elsewhere for lack of interest, lack of training, or direct aversion?
If you read the about page, that’s not how LW statement of purpose is phrased.
Yes, but not very strongly. Given that your post is overall it positive karma it’s however alright. Karma votes show you whether a majority thinks your post has a place or hasn’t. Votes decide what threads have a place in discussion and which haven’t.
Online communities are not states with guaranteed freedom of speech.
It’s not only about the perception of outsiders. It’s also about what the people in this community think.
Yes. I was making a poor analogy. Isn’t the value of lesswrong that we are able to explore ideas things that are not admissible elsewhere for lack of interest, lack of training, or direct aversion? (This is obviously contestable. I invite you to contest it.) If the fundamental value of the community is compromised out of concern for its reputation, then the reputation is of increasingly less value.
If you read the about page, that’s not how LW statement of purpose is phrased.
To quote the About page
In this case “automatically” rejection would be a poor description even in the case where NRx is more discouraged.