Sorry, I was trying to be really careful as I was writing of not accusing you specifically of bad intentions, but obviously it's hard in a conversation like this where you're jumping between the meta and the object-level.

It's important to distinguish a couple things.

1. Jessica and I were talking about people with negative intentions in the last two posts. I'm not claiming that you're one of those people that is deliberately using this type of argument to cause harm.

2. I'm not claiming that it was the writing of those two posts that were harmful in the way we were talking about. I was claiming that the long post you wrote at the top of the thread where you made several analogies about your response, were exactly the sort of gray area situations where, depending on context, the community might decide to sacrifice it's sacred value. At the same time, you were banking on the fact that it was a sacred value to say "even in this case, we would uphold the sacred value." This has the same structure as the werewolf move mentioned above, and it was important for me to speak up, even if you're not a werewolf.

Comment section from 05/19/2019

by habryka 1 min read20th May 2019139 comments


I moved the big meta-level comment thread from "Yes Requires the Possibility of No" over to here, since it seemed mostly unrelated to that top-level post. This not being on frontpage also makes it easier for people to just directly discuss the moderation and meta-level norms.