I don’t really know much about killthread. I suppose I could make the same points using heaven instead of hell, but that wouldn’t really change things for anyone with a modicum of insight.
The point is that I am describing a chain of logic that does not lead to being afraid of acausal threats. I think the overall logic is valid (though in the bits with parallel argumentation, the non-key points are more tentative). But say that someone with killthread capacity is afraid of people being afraid of acausal threats. Even if they believe my logic is invalid—unless it were obviously or abrasively so—there would be no reason I can see for them to killthread me. They just wouldn’t point out what they saw as my errors.
I think there’s sufficient reason for a moratorium on discussion of acausal threat scenarios, at least for the time being until peoples’ imaginations settle down again.
I can see that, if this line of though could be the downfall of humanity, it’s best to just avoid it altogether. But that cat is out of the bag; even if one wishes it weren’t, it’s not at all clear that fighting that isn’t counterproductive. And the “scenario” I pose is more of an antiscenario. The motivation is ludicrous (big brother?) and the entire purpose is to demonstrate the impossibility and pointlessness of acausal threats.
I don’t really know much about killthread. I suppose I could make the same points using heaven instead of hell, but that wouldn’t really change things for anyone with a modicum of insight.
The point is that I am describing a chain of logic that does not lead to being afraid of acausal threats. I think the overall logic is valid (though in the bits with parallel argumentation, the non-key points are more tentative). But say that someone with killthread capacity is afraid of people being afraid of acausal threats. Even if they believe my logic is invalid—unless it were obviously or abrasively so—there would be no reason I can see for them to killthread me. They just wouldn’t point out what they saw as my errors.
I think there’s sufficient reason for a moratorium on discussion of acausal threat scenarios, at least for the time being until peoples’ imaginations settle down again.
I can see that, if this line of though could be the downfall of humanity, it’s best to just avoid it altogether. But that cat is out of the bag; even if one wishes it weren’t, it’s not at all clear that fighting that isn’t counterproductive. And the “scenario” I pose is more of an antiscenario. The motivation is ludicrous (big brother?) and the entire purpose is to demonstrate the impossibility and pointlessness of acausal threats.
Anti-acausals, I am your ally.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.