You elsewhere link to this post as a āclear example of a post that would be banned under the rulesā. That post includes the following argument:
People act like genetic engineering would be some sort of horrifying mad science project to create freakish mutant supermen who can shoot acid out of their eyes. But I would be pretty happy if it could just make everyone do as well as Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazim I know are mostly well-off, well-educated, and live decent lives. If genetic engineering could give those advantages to everyone, it would easily qualify as the most important piece of social progress in history, even before we started giving people the ability to shoot acid out of their eyes.
The post concludes, āEAās existing taboos are preventing it from answering questions like these, and as new taboos are accepted, the effectiveness of the movement will continue to wain.ā
You may well judge this to be wrong, as a substantive matter. But I donāt understand how anyone could seriously claim that this is āoff topic and irrelevant to EA.ā (The effectiveness of the movement is obviously a matter of relevant concern for EA.) Peopleās tendency to dishonestly smuggle substantive judgments under putatively procedural grounds is precisely why Iām so suspicious of such calls for censorship.
As an Ashkenazi Jew myself, saying āweād like to make everyone like Ashkenazi Jewsā feels just like a mirror image of Nazism that very clearly should not appear on the forum
Iām not making any claims either way about that. Iām just pointing out (contra Matthew) that it is clearly not āirrelevant spamā. Your objections are substantive, not procedural. Folks who want to censor views they find offensive should be honest about what theyāre doing, not pretend that theyāre just filtering out viagra ads.
I think it is irrelevant, and in every context where Iāve seen it presented as āon topicā in EA, the connection between it and any positive impact was simplistic to the point of being imaginary, while at the same time promoting dangerous viewsājust like in the post you quoted.
You elsewhere link to this post as a āclear example of a post that would be banned under the rulesā. That post includes the following argument:
The post concludes, āEAās existing taboos are preventing it from answering questions like these, and as new taboos are accepted, the effectiveness of the movement will continue to wain.ā
You may well judge this to be wrong, as a substantive matter. But I donāt understand how anyone could seriously claim that this is āoff topic and irrelevant to EA.ā (The effectiveness of the movement is obviously a matter of relevant concern for EA.) Peopleās tendency to dishonestly smuggle substantive judgments under putatively procedural grounds is precisely why Iām so suspicious of such calls for censorship.
As an Ashkenazi Jew myself, saying āweād like to make everyone like Ashkenazi Jewsā feels just like a mirror image of Nazism that very clearly should not appear on the forum
Iām not making any claims either way about that. Iām just pointing out (contra Matthew) that it is clearly not āirrelevant spamā. Your objections are substantive, not procedural. Folks who want to censor views they find offensive should be honest about what theyāre doing, not pretend that theyāre just filtering out viagra ads.
I think it is irrelevant, and in every context where Iāve seen it presented as āon topicā in EA, the connection between it and any positive impact was simplistic to the point of being imaginary, while at the same time promoting dangerous viewsājust like in the post you quoted.