It would be interesting to know how many people are playing along to keep the peace, while actually laughing at the whole thing because of course no mere argument could possibly hurt them in their invincible mind fortresses
I’m certain that the forbidden topic couldn’t possibly hurt me (probability of that is zilch). Still, I agree that from what we know, considering it should be discouraged, based on an expected utility argument (it either changes nothing or hurts tremendously with tiny probability, but can’t correspondingly help tremendously because human value is a narrow target). Don’t confuse these two arguments.
(I think this is my best summary of the shape of the argument so far.)
(EDIT2: Looking at the discussion here, I am now reminded that it is not just potentially toxic due to decision theoretic oddities, but actually already known to be severely psychologically toxic to at least some people. This, of course, changes things significantly, and I am retracting my “being bugged” by the removal.)
The thing that’s been bugging me about this whole issue is even given that a certain piece of information MAY (with really tiny probability) be highly (for lack of a better word), toxic… should we as humans really be in the habit of “this seems like dangerous idea, don’t think about it”?
I can’t help but think this must violate something analogous (though not identical) to an ethical injunction. ie, chances of human encountering inherently toxic idea are so small vs cost of smothering one’s own curiosity/allowing censorship not due to trollishness or even revelation of technical details that could be used to do really dangerous thing, but simply because it is judged dangerous to even think about...
I get why this was perhaps a very particular special circumstance, but am still of several minds about this one. “Don’t think about deliciously forbidden dangerous idea, just don’t”, even if perhaps actually is indicated in certain very unusual special cases, seems like the sort of thing that one would, as a human, want injunctions against.
Again, I’m of several minds on this however.
(EDIT: Just to clarify, that does not mean that I in any way approve of “existential threat blackmail” or that I’m even of two minds about that. That’s just epically stupid)
(EDIT2: Looking at the discussion here, I am now reminded that it is not just potentially toxic due to decision theoretic oddities, but actually already known to be severely psychologically toxic to at least some people. This, of course, changes things significantly, and I am retracting my “being bugged” by the removal.)
Yeah, that was the reason that convinced me its removal from here was a good enough idea to bother enacting. I wouldn’t try removing it from the net, but due warning is appropriate. Such things attract curious monkeys to test the wet paint—but! I still haven’t seen 2 Girls 1 Cup and have no plans to! So it’s not assured.
I’m certain that the forbidden topic couldn’t possibly hurt me (probability of that is zilch). Still, I agree that from what we know, considering it should be discouraged, based on an expected utility argument (it either changes nothing or hurts tremendously with tiny probability, but can’t correspondingly help tremendously because human value is a narrow target). Don’t confuse these two arguments.
(I think this is my best summary of the shape of the argument so far.)
(EDIT2: Looking at the discussion here, I am now reminded that it is not just potentially toxic due to decision theoretic oddities, but actually already known to be severely psychologically toxic to at least some people. This, of course, changes things significantly, and I am retracting my “being bugged” by the removal.)
The thing that’s been bugging me about this whole issue is even given that a certain piece of information MAY (with really tiny probability) be highly (for lack of a better word), toxic… should we as humans really be in the habit of “this seems like dangerous idea, don’t think about it”?
I can’t help but think this must violate something analogous (though not identical) to an ethical injunction. ie, chances of human encountering inherently toxic idea are so small vs cost of smothering one’s own curiosity/allowing censorship not due to trollishness or even revelation of technical details that could be used to do really dangerous thing, but simply because it is judged dangerous to even think about...
I get why this was perhaps a very particular special circumstance, but am still of several minds about this one. “Don’t think about deliciously forbidden dangerous idea, just don’t”, even if perhaps actually is indicated in certain very unusual special cases, seems like the sort of thing that one would, as a human, want injunctions against.
Again, I’m of several minds on this however.
(EDIT: Just to clarify, that does not mean that I in any way approve of “existential threat blackmail” or that I’m even of two minds about that. That’s just epically stupid)
Yeah, that was the reason that convinced me its removal from here was a good enough idea to bother enacting. I wouldn’t try removing it from the net, but due warning is appropriate. Such things attract curious monkeys to test the wet paint—but! I still haven’t seen 2 Girls 1 Cup and have no plans to! So it’s not assured.
I’ve seen it. It’s not really as interesting as the hype would suggest.