Lizka, this isn’t a good idea. This kind of moderation will have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to express appropriate emotions at a difficult time.
You state and consider the natural explanation for why Denise’s statement is okay (that there is no especially problematic history of using this and similar statements to oppress men). If open defense of race science and questioning of sexual abuse victims falls within acceptable discourse norms, I think Denise’s statement should fall comfortably within them too.
I’m confused about why David’s comment was downvoted into negative territory but agreevoted positively (-9 / +13 at the time I saw it). Whether or not people agree with it, it’s a valid point (and they seem to agree with it on net . . .)
I assume EAs think I’m speaking a bit sharply here? These discussions are hard because EAs often place a very high value on polite/unemotional discourse, whereas non-EAs often place a higher value on discourse that won’t cause harms to groups/people and think that sharper or more emotional discourse can sometimes be an appropriate response (or even the only appropriate response) in such cases.
Lizka, this isn’t a good idea. This kind of moderation will have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to express appropriate emotions at a difficult time.
You state and consider the natural explanation for why Denise’s statement is okay (that there is no especially problematic history of using this and similar statements to oppress men). If open defense of race science and questioning of sexual abuse victims falls within acceptable discourse norms, I think Denise’s statement should fall comfortably within them too.
I’m confused about why David’s comment was downvoted into negative territory but agreevoted positively (-9 / +13 at the time I saw it). Whether or not people agree with it, it’s a valid point (and they seem to agree with it on net . . .)
I assume EAs think I’m speaking a bit sharply here? These discussions are hard because EAs often place a very high value on polite/unemotional discourse, whereas non-EAs often place a higher value on discourse that won’t cause harms to groups/people and think that sharper or more emotional discourse can sometimes be an appropriate response (or even the only appropriate response) in such cases.
That seems fine? The chilling effect is something Mill identified as being a problem when it prevents good ideas from being shared.