You are explicitly prohibited from:
[...]
Posting or transmitting content through the Website that is harassing, threatens or encourages bodily harm, constitutes hate speech, or advocates for the destruction of property;
This case went beyond LW’s usual attitude toward debate; this was explicit advocacy of violence, which should always be treated as Serious Business.
It’s hard (at least for me—YMMV) to read “can’t get” (emphasis added; as opposed to e.g. “don’t get”) in a way that doesn’t imply the threat of violence (broadly construed) against women who do try to get sexual experience before marriage. Then again, by such standards proposals to e.g. ban a particular drug would also count as advocacy of violence, so probably EY had something less broad in mind.
I believe the intent of EY’s ban on violence was violence against identifiable individuals. Discussion and advocacy of violence against collective groups (the canonical example being supporting specific wars) is OK.
Amen. But the LW Terms of Use state:
This case went beyond LW’s usual attitude toward debate; this was explicit advocacy of violence, which should always be treated as Serious Business.
It’s hard (at least for me—YMMV) to read “can’t get” (emphasis added; as opposed to e.g. “don’t get”) in a way that doesn’t imply the threat of violence (broadly construed) against women who do try to get sexual experience before marriage. Then again, by such standards proposals to e.g. ban a particular drug would also count as advocacy of violence, so probably EY had something less broad in mind.
Or discussion of any laws whatsoever.
I meant the part where he implied that lack of sex justified mass murder.
Did you mean for the “advocacy of violence” link to go to https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Deletion_policy#Hypothetical_violence_against_identifiable_targets instead?
It seemed that one applied to the Wiki only, so I didn’t use it.
I believe the intent of EY’s ban on violence was violence against identifiable individuals. Discussion and advocacy of violence against collective groups (the canonical example being supporting specific wars) is OK.