I dunno, I also strong downvote things that don’t break the rules but present ideas that I find likely really harmful (e.g. if someone started proposing eugenics as a cause area).
I’d also include norms against promoting violence or coercion.
I think there should be a place to discuss voluntary eugenics, i.e. parents selecting for certain positive traits or against certain negative traits in their children before birth, and if there should be anywhere it can be discussed publicly online where basically anyone can participate, I think the EA Forum may be among the best places. If you were to strong downvote a post discussing it, I would hope you’d explain why in the comments (or someone else would).
Previously, I’ve recommended strong downvotes be required to be accompanied by explanations. The explanations could still be anonymous, although I’m not sure whether it’s better or worse for them to be anonymous.
I think there should be a place to discuss voluntary eugenics, i.e. parents selecting for certain positive traits or against certain negative traits in their children before birth… If you were to strong downvote a post discussing it, I would hope you’d explain why
I’d almost surely downvote it, but whether it’s a strong downvote will depend on details (e.g. if there’s an elitist call to “improve humanity by genetic selection”). The reason is that I think it’s a rabbit hole that starts out looking innocent but quickly develops, whether by the forum users or by whomever their discussion might influence, into something very bad.
I do the same, but I think we should be transparent about what those harmful ideas are. Have posted rules about what words or topics are beyond the pale, which a moderator can enforce unilaterally with an announcement, much like they do on private Facebook groups or Reddit threads. Where a harmful comment doesn’t explicitly violate a rule, users can still downvote it into oblivion—but it shouldn’t be up to one or two people’s unilateral discretion.
Ya, I agree. I think the only things I strong downvote are things worth reporting as norm-breaking, like spam or hostile/abusive comments.
We could also just weaken (strong) downvotes relative to upvotes.
I dunno, I also strong downvote things that don’t break the rules but present ideas that I find likely really harmful (e.g. if someone started proposing eugenics as a cause area).
I’d also include norms against promoting violence or coercion.
I think there should be a place to discuss voluntary eugenics, i.e. parents selecting for certain positive traits or against certain negative traits in their children before birth, and if there should be anywhere it can be discussed publicly online where basically anyone can participate, I think the EA Forum may be among the best places. If you were to strong downvote a post discussing it, I would hope you’d explain why in the comments (or someone else would).
Previously, I’ve recommended strong downvotes be required to be accompanied by explanations. The explanations could still be anonymous, although I’m not sure whether it’s better or worse for them to be anonymous.
I don’t want to digress so I’ll keep this short.
I’d almost surely downvote it, but whether it’s a strong downvote will depend on details (e.g. if there’s an elitist call to “improve humanity by genetic selection”). The reason is that I think it’s a rabbit hole that starts out looking innocent but quickly develops, whether by the forum users or by whomever their discussion might influence, into something very bad.
I do the same, but I think we should be transparent about what those harmful ideas are. Have posted rules about what words or topics are beyond the pale, which a moderator can enforce unilaterally with an announcement, much like they do on private Facebook groups or Reddit threads. Where a harmful comment doesn’t explicitly violate a rule, users can still downvote it into oblivion—but it shouldn’t be up to one or two people’s unilateral discretion.