I dunno, I also strong downvote things that donāt break the rules but present ideas that I find likely really harmful (e.g. if someone started proposing eugenics as a cause area).
Iād 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 youād explain why in the comments (or someone else would).
Previously, Iāve recommended strong downvotes be required to be accompanied by explanations. The explanations could still be anonymous, although Iām not sure whether itās better or worse for them to be anonymous.
I donāt want to digress so Iāll keep this short.
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 birthā¦ If you were to strong downvote a post discussing it, I would hope youād explain why
Iād almost surely downvote it, but whether itās a strong downvote will depend on details (e.g. if thereās an elitist call to āimprove humanity by genetic selectionā). The reason is that I think itās 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 doesnāt explicitly violate a rule, users can still downvote it into oblivionābut it shouldnāt be up to one or two peopleās unilateral discretion.
Ya, I agree. I think the only things I strong downvote are things worth reporting as norm-breaking, like spam or hostile/āabusive comments.
We could also just weaken (strong) downvotes relative to upvotes.
I dunno, I also strong downvote things that donāt break the rules but present ideas that I find likely really harmful (e.g. if someone started proposing eugenics as a cause area).
Iād 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 youād explain why in the comments (or someone else would).
Previously, Iāve recommended strong downvotes be required to be accompanied by explanations. The explanations could still be anonymous, although Iām not sure whether itās better or worse for them to be anonymous.
I donāt want to digress so Iāll keep this short.
Iād almost surely downvote it, but whether itās a strong downvote will depend on details (e.g. if thereās an elitist call to āimprove humanity by genetic selectionā). The reason is that I think itās 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 doesnāt explicitly violate a rule, users can still downvote it into oblivionābut it shouldnāt be up to one or two peopleās unilateral discretion.