You may have a point. It turns out that at least one person would like to get in touch with aa, and I’m not sure how that’s possible.
What’s more (and this sounds like karma) I read something by a man who was involuntarily celibate, and discovered that hormone therapy helped. I’d have sworn I saw this on the most recent SlateStarCodex open thread, and now I can’t find it. Meanwhile, it would be exactly like the usual human level of competence to treat a physical problem as though it has an emotional cause.
I looked through his comments for a second, and at least on reddit he’s talking about incel stuff in the relationship subreddits and cryonics in the transhuman subreddits.
That would be a horrible rule—no one would be able to ban me for my ardent desire to eat babies alive. I mean, unless you have some equally perverted moderators…
There is a debate like this- about, abortion. And you’re right, I don’t think that people should be banned for having the position that pro-lifers think of as “pro-killing babies”,
Okay, so that was a bad example… (?) But the point still stands. If in order to ban someone we have to have a moderator who agrees with the person being banned, then some people will be much harder to ban than others. And we will most likely have to add some sub-optimal choices to the moderator pool, simply because now we are selecting for a factor that we otherwise wouldn’t value.
I am surprised that my original comment was down-karma’s so much—if you have useful feedback onthis (especially ‘bad point’ vs. ‘bad expression of point’), please respond or private msg me—learning is good!
And we will most likely have to add some sub-optimal choices to the moderator pool, simply because now we are selecting for a factor that we otherwise wouldn’t value.
Ahh, I see what’s happening. You’re thinking of my suggestion as “Don’t ban people who’s opinion you disagree with.”
But that’s not actually what I meant. You’re very welcome to disagree with the person you ban—it’s just that you shouldn’t ban them BECAUSE you find their opinion objectionable.
Doesn’t that become equivalent to saying that you cannot be banned for saying generally offensive things? It is better than my original interpretation—people can now be banned for being illogical, unintelligible, repetitive, and even unresponsive, but they still can’t be banned for for being intentionally offensive—whether through extreme positions (women should be forced to have sex) or insults/obscenities. I suppose that you could batch those under illogical?
Edit: I overlooked the obvious case of being able to ban someone for posting multiple low-rep posts—that should cover the last of my objections. Thank you for explaining!
No, if someone is being intentionally offensive in a trolling way, this rule says nothing about it either way. Likewise, it doesn’t say anything one way or the other about low rep posts.
However, if someone has a position that you find offensive, but is being reasonable about presenting their opinion and is not just trying to start a flamewar, then that’s not sufficient cause for banning under this rule.
I’ve said things which could be interpreted as wanting to eat babies, at least if you go by Nancy’s “altogether too close to saying” standard (I didn’t actually say it, but I got close). I really would not want to be banned for such a thing, and I think banning people for such things is poisonous to the discourse here. The example of killing patients for their organs is another one.
No, it’s the standard right of freedom of speech that’s enshirned in the constitution.
In general an editor of a newspaper can decide which articles the newspaper is going to publish and a website can decide which posts to publish.
Classically nothing about the idea of freedom of speech compels other people to publish your opinions. Rather the idea is about giving people the choice to publish whatever they want to publish.
That’s just plain not true. There’s a long history defining the exact role of the media in relation to free speech, and the conversation does not end at “media can print what it wants.”
There’s an entire subfield of journalistic ethics about this relation, and how the media has a responsiblity to protect free speech, even WITHIN the media itself , because the media has a role in how ideas get shared. A personal website in this regard is very different then a discussion board, as the latter serves a similar purpose of allowing discourse. As reductio ad absurdem of your definition of free speech, imagine someone in Iran saying “The Iranian people have the right to free speech—just not within the country”. Even though it’s technically true, it still doesn’t say anything about the EFFECT of the restriction of speech on discourse (which is the purpose of free speech in the first place).
A personal website in this regard is very different then a discussion board, as the latter serves a similar purpose of allowing discourse.
LW exist for allowing discourse to refine the art of rationality. It’s purpose is not that everybody can share whatever is on his mind.
Editorial and moderation choices are going to be directed by that goal. It’s different than a medium like facebook that exist for everybody to share anything.
“The Iranian people have the right to free speech—just not within the country”. Even though it’s technically true
I doubt that’s technically true. The Iranian government is going to punish speech by it’s citizens that it doesn’t like regardles whether that speech happens in Iran or whether it happens in another country.
Sigh. Jerking knees are rarely the best responses.
Trolls. Spam. Speech inside your home. Big loudspeakers outside your windows. Etc. etc.
Freedom of speech is a right with a matching duty to not interfere with the speech owed by the government. It’s not a general deontological rule applicable to all human interactions.
There’s a concept of “free speech absolutism” which basically says that if you are in a venue that encourages discourse, you should allow any speech.
You’re not a deontologist, so you might look at that rule and say “but what about the consequences”. But, that’s not what a free speech absolutist would do.
Unless you are arguing that you are a free speech absolutist, or, maybe, that LW should be run under such absolutism, I don’t see the relevance. There are a LOT of fringe concepts around.
And my point was and remains that you did not provide an answer. She didn’t ask whether you can make up a deontological rule she violated. She asked whether there was a reasonable and practical rule you think she violated. Free speech absolutism isn’t one. As to “but I do think”, that’s still not a deontological rule—that’s an ad hoc resolution which you happen to prefer.
Show me a place where it is practiced. Spam folders do not count.
that would have prevented AA from being banned.
Actually, it would prevent all moderation. Would you like to learn one weird trick which would extend your manhood and make all women get naked and bring you offers to reclaim your wealth from a bank in Nigeria while stomping on pink commie faggots?
You may have a point. It turns out that at least one person would like to get in touch with aa, and I’m not sure how that’s possible.
What’s more (and this sounds like karma) I read something by a man who was involuntarily celibate, and discovered that hormone therapy helped. I’d have sworn I saw this on the most recent SlateStarCodex open thread, and now I can’t find it. Meanwhile, it would be exactly like the usual human level of competence to treat a physical problem as though it has an emotional cause.
What deontological rule did you have in mind?
Try here: https://www.reddit.com/user/advancedatheist
I looked through his comments for a second, and at least on reddit he’s talking about incel stuff in the relationship subreddits and cryonics in the transhuman subreddits.
Freedom of Speech seems most obvious.
I was expecting a rule like bans should be preceded by a warning and a chance to reply.
That’s a rule I’d strongly support other than in cases of absolutely unambiguous spamming or clear sockpuppets of banned individuals.
But a rule like “don’t ban people for opinions you disagree with” would also fit the bill, no?
It would, and I was following it for a while.
That would be a horrible rule—no one would be able to ban me for my ardent desire to eat babies alive. I mean, unless you have some equally perverted moderators…
There is a debate like this- about, abortion. And you’re right, I don’t think that people should be banned for having the position that pro-lifers think of as “pro-killing babies”,
Okay, so that was a bad example… (?) But the point still stands. If in order to ban someone we have to have a moderator who agrees with the person being banned, then some people will be much harder to ban than others. And we will most likely have to add some sub-optimal choices to the moderator pool, simply because now we are selecting for a factor that we otherwise wouldn’t value.
I am surprised that my original comment was down-karma’s so much—if you have useful feedback onthis (especially ‘bad point’ vs. ‘bad expression of point’), please respond or private msg me—learning is good!
Ahh, I see what’s happening. You’re thinking of my suggestion as “Don’t ban people who’s opinion you disagree with.”
But that’s not actually what I meant. You’re very welcome to disagree with the person you ban—it’s just that you shouldn’t ban them BECAUSE you find their opinion objectionable.
Doesn’t that become equivalent to saying that you cannot be banned for saying generally offensive things? It is better than my original interpretation—people can now be banned for being illogical, unintelligible, repetitive, and even unresponsive, but they still can’t be banned for for being intentionally offensive—whether through extreme positions (women should be forced to have sex) or insults/obscenities. I suppose that you could batch those under illogical?
Edit: I overlooked the obvious case of being able to ban someone for posting multiple low-rep posts—that should cover the last of my objections. Thank you for explaining!
No, if someone is being intentionally offensive in a trolling way, this rule says nothing about it either way. Likewise, it doesn’t say anything one way or the other about low rep posts.
However, if someone has a position that you find offensive, but is being reasonable about presenting their opinion and is not just trying to start a flamewar, then that’s not sufficient cause for banning under this rule.
I’ve said things which could be interpreted as wanting to eat babies, at least if you go by Nancy’s “altogether too close to saying” standard (I didn’t actually say it, but I got close). I really would not want to be banned for such a thing, and I think banning people for such things is poisonous to the discourse here. The example of killing patients for their organs is another one.
He is free to continue speaking about the subject, just not on LW.
This is a very non-standard definition of freedom of speech.
No, it’s the standard right of freedom of speech that’s enshirned in the constitution.
In general an editor of a newspaper can decide which articles the newspaper is going to publish and a website can decide which posts to publish.
Classically nothing about the idea of freedom of speech compels other people to publish your opinions. Rather the idea is about giving people the choice to publish whatever they want to publish.
That’s just plain not true. There’s a long history defining the exact role of the media in relation to free speech, and the conversation does not end at “media can print what it wants.”
There’s an entire subfield of journalistic ethics about this relation, and how the media has a responsiblity to protect free speech, even WITHIN the media itself , because the media has a role in how ideas get shared. A personal website in this regard is very different then a discussion board, as the latter serves a similar purpose of allowing discourse. As reductio ad absurdem of your definition of free speech, imagine someone in Iran saying “The Iranian people have the right to free speech—just not within the country”. Even though it’s technically true, it still doesn’t say anything about the EFFECT of the restriction of speech on discourse (which is the purpose of free speech in the first place).
LW exist for allowing discourse to refine the art of rationality. It’s purpose is not that everybody can share whatever is on his mind.
Editorial and moderation choices are going to be directed by that goal. It’s different than a medium like facebook that exist for everybody to share anything.
I doubt that’s technically true. The Iranian government is going to punish speech by it’s citizens that it doesn’t like regardles whether that speech happens in Iran or whether it happens in another country.
That’s not a deontological rule.
Thou shalt not restrict freedom of speech.
Sigh. Jerking knees are rarely the best responses.
Trolls. Spam. Speech inside your home. Big loudspeakers outside your windows. Etc. etc.
Freedom of speech is a right with a matching duty to not interfere with the speech owed by the government. It’s not a general deontological rule applicable to all human interactions.
There’s a concept of “free speech absolutism” which basically says that if you are in a venue that encourages discourse, you should allow any speech.
You’re not a deontologist, so you might look at that rule and say “but what about the consequences”. But, that’s not what a free speech absolutist would do.
Unless you are arguing that you are a free speech absolutist, or, maybe, that LW should be run under such absolutism, I don’t see the relevance. There are a LOT of fringe concepts around.
I’m not a free speech absoluist, but I do think that Advanced Atheist should not ahve been banned for the reason of free speech.
Regardless of what I believe though, I wasn’t arguing for or against it, I was answering Nancy’s Question.
And my point was and remains that you did not provide an answer. She didn’t ask whether you can make up a deontological rule she violated. She asked whether there was a reasonable and practical rule you think she violated. Free speech absolutism isn’t one. As to “but I do think”, that’s still not a deontological rule—that’s an ad hoc resolution which you happen to prefer.
Free speech absolutism absolutely is one. It’s a common deontological rule that would have prevented AA from being banned.
All moral intuitions are ad hoc.
Common??
Show me a place where it is practiced. Spam folders do not count.
Actually, it would prevent all moderation. Would you like to learn one weird trick which would extend your manhood and make all women get naked and bring you offers to reclaim your wealth from a bank in Nigeria while stomping on pink commie faggots?
Free speech absolutism only applies to the reasons for free speech (discourse). Spam does not count—objectionable opinions do.