Wiki Contributions


To hopefully be a little clearer: Calling something hate speech, and banning it for that reason, is the method by which Europe bans this kind of speech. Saying "it doesn't count because they're just banning hate speech" is equivalent to "it doesn't count because they're banning it in the way they usually do".

If the typical method of doing X automatically makes it not count--just because it's using the typical method--then of course you'll have trouble finding examples of X.

What else could the "as a cause" in "socialist firms as a cause area" possibly mean, except "as an EA cause"? The title wouldn't make sense if it just meant "as a cause, but not as any particular kind of cause", and the only particular type of cause being discussed is EA.

I also don't think that "alleviating misery" in this context can mean anything other than "alleviating misery, because you are EAs and EAs want to get rid of misery".

That's like saying "I wanted an example of someone being put in jail for just marijuana possession, and also not being arrested."

"Hate speech" is the excuse used by Europe to prosecute people for objecting to immigration. It's something you guys made up in order to stop free speech.

>Give up on the Holocaust deniers, and no one else can be sure what other Schelling point you've committed to, if any...
>...unless they can. In parts of Europe, they've banned Holocaust denial for years and everyone's been totally okay with it.

I'd say this has aged poorly, except it was evident at the time this was written as well, if not quite as much.  Europeans have managed to slippery-slope from banning Holocaust denial to banning political speech that could be painted as related to an oppressed group in any way, so you get people prosecuted for objecting to immigration or to trans politics.

If someone can do a thing X, which is nice and beneficial and should be encouraged, but which also makes it possible for you to do a thing Y, which hurts them and makes them regret doing X, then it is rude for you to do Y.

If X is "a racist, who hates even seeing blacks, opening a store" and Y is a "a black person entering the store", by your definition Y is rude. I would disagree.

Why not bid for time off, with different multipliers depending on how many are out at once?

Because for actual humans, doing so has huge transaction costs. I'm reminded of the reason why micropayments failed., except this isn't so micro.

It also makes you lose predictablity--you can no longer look at a number and know that you have exactly that many days.

Let me rephrase: There's a long tendency of amateurs to come up with some sort of "clever idea" in a field that has been around a long time, and think they've got some sort of new insight that people in the field have somehow never managed to consider. And they're always wrong, because if an amateur can come up with some idea, so can a person in the field, and if the idea hasn't taken over the field, there's a reason why.

This is true in the sciences (it happens a lot), but it's also true in fields such as law. If you have not contacted a lawyer and the lawyer has at least told you "no, it's not obviously wrong, and no, there isn't an existing body of literature explaining why it's non-obviously wrong", chances are negligible that your idea will pan out.

Finding a clever, new, legal argument for something that no lawyer has considered is about as likely as coming up with a clever, new, argument for why Enstein is wrong.

Have you asked a lawyer whether your analysis is valid?

Expert opinion should be discounted when their opinions could be predicted solely from information not relevant to the truth of the claims.

I can't think of how to usefully determine that some sort of information is not relevant to the truth of the claims. In some sense, everything is; I can predict someone's opinion on homeopathy by observing that they're a doctor. Although you could say that being a doctor is relevant to the truth of the claims (people who choose to become doctors rather than homeopaths make this choice because medicine works and homeopathy doesn't), it's a rather indirect relevance.

Load More