Folks, this is what “things you can’t say” looks like. This is what a real social taboo looks like.
It looks to me more like what happens when someone uses “taboo” as a Power Word: Stun on a group of people with an excessive identity as rationalists. It’s this, especially item #1, translated to discussion forums.
I notice that JoshElders original posting has gone. Good.
I’ve said pretty forthrightly that I believe he’s just a troll, and I stand by that. But suppose I take him at his word. What is to be said? Sucks to be him, yay for not kiddle-fiddling (but he doesn’t get any prize for that), and—what? Certainly, there are discussions to be had about laws and mores around age, consent, and pornography. There are also places to have these discussions. LessWrong is not one of them.
LessWrong has a specific focus, without which it becomes merely MoreWrong and AveragelyWrong imagining they’re LessWrong because they’re posting on a site called LessWrong and have learned how to dress up as pretend rationalists. Nothing is made relevant to LessWrong just by being posted here. Framing discussions of whether the latest irrelevance should be here at all in terms of “exclusion”, “taboo” and “open-minded” is somewhere between clueless and Dark Arts.
I’ve said pretty forthrightly that I believe he’s just a troll, and I stand by that.
I want to say publicly that after initial disbelief (motivated by the #1 Geek Social Fallacy), I have updated towards Richard’s judgement of the situation. If you read carefully the comments, they are optimized for drawing attention to their author and prolonging the debate infinitely.
I have made the mistake of feeding the troll, thereby decreasing the quality of this website. It’s even more embarassing to realize that it is a mistake most readers avoided. I have learned my lesson, and hopefully it will make me stronger in future internet debates.
The substantive posts I brought up are about matters of fact under conditions of great uncertainty—for instance, drawing conclusions about a largely invisible group. I brought up the ideas of “civil rights”, “taboo”, etc. only in response to people saying it shouldn’t be discussed here—that wasn’t my idea. And it looks like the predominant view among the regulars is that it isn’t irrelevant to the mission of rationality, it isn’t off topic, and that I am making cogent arguments. It’s to be downplayed because it’s too hot to handle, due to the expected reactions (quite possibly very much at odds with rationality) of the general reading public. I think there’s considerable benefit on being clear about that.
I brought up the ideas of “civil rights”, “taboo”, etc. only in response to people saying it shouldn’t be discussed here—that wasn’t my idea.
It was your idea to bring up “civil rights” as a response to “this does not belong here”. An idea as old as the Internet.
It’s to be downplayed because it’s too hot to handle, due to the expected reactions (quite possibly very much at odds with rationality) of the general reading public. I think there’s considerable benefit on being clear about that.
I have just reread this entire thread, from which it appears to me that this has been clear to all from the start. I agree that there would be considerable benefit from you, also, being clear about that.
It looks to me more like what happens when someone uses “taboo” as a Power Word: Stun on a group of people with an excessive identity as rationalists. It’s this, especially item #1, translated to discussion forums.
I notice that JoshElders original posting has gone. Good.
I’ve said pretty forthrightly that I believe he’s just a troll, and I stand by that. But suppose I take him at his word. What is to be said? Sucks to be him, yay for not kiddle-fiddling (but he doesn’t get any prize for that), and—what? Certainly, there are discussions to be had about laws and mores around age, consent, and pornography. There are also places to have these discussions. LessWrong is not one of them.
LessWrong has a specific focus, without which it becomes merely MoreWrong and AveragelyWrong imagining they’re LessWrong because they’re posting on a site called LessWrong and have learned how to dress up as pretend rationalists. Nothing is made relevant to LessWrong just by being posted here. Framing discussions of whether the latest irrelevance should be here at all in terms of “exclusion”, “taboo” and “open-minded” is somewhere between clueless and Dark Arts.
I want to say publicly that after initial disbelief (motivated by the #1 Geek Social Fallacy), I have updated towards Richard’s judgement of the situation. If you read carefully the comments, they are optimized for drawing attention to their author and prolonging the debate infinitely.
I have made the mistake of feeding the troll, thereby decreasing the quality of this website. It’s even more embarassing to realize that it is a mistake most readers avoided. I have learned my lesson, and hopefully it will make me stronger in future internet debates.
The substantive posts I brought up are about matters of fact under conditions of great uncertainty—for instance, drawing conclusions about a largely invisible group. I brought up the ideas of “civil rights”, “taboo”, etc. only in response to people saying it shouldn’t be discussed here—that wasn’t my idea. And it looks like the predominant view among the regulars is that it isn’t irrelevant to the mission of rationality, it isn’t off topic, and that I am making cogent arguments. It’s to be downplayed because it’s too hot to handle, due to the expected reactions (quite possibly very much at odds with rationality) of the general reading public. I think there’s considerable benefit on being clear about that.
It was your idea to bring up “civil rights” as a response to “this does not belong here”. An idea as old as the Internet.
I have just reread this entire thread, from which it appears to me that this has been clear to all from the start. I agree that there would be considerable benefit from you, also, being clear about that.