4 ms·

I think we're conflating all kinds of stuff here. In small social groups, the group norms around certain behaviors. That's normal. It's also normal that differ

I think we're conflating all kinds of stuff here. In small social groups, the group norms around certain behaviors. That's normal. It's also normal that different small social groups will have different norms. As a personal matter, don't be an asshole. You shouldn't say things to others to deliberately hurt them. The principle of charity is valid here as well, by the way. Sometimes people are hurt because even though you mean well, they take things the wrong way. In larger groups, probably somewhere around Dunbar's Number, it becomes inevitable that norming will not work -- nor should it work. That's because larger groups of people naturally become echo chambers full of groupthink. It's imperative to have voices and opinions that some find harsh. c.f. On Liberty These are three separate issues. They are related, yes, but one doesn't trump the others. Society needs all of this to function well. ADD: One of the interesting things that happened with the invention of the television was that there was no more adult talk anymore. Adults said that in the past, there was plenty of time when the kids ran off and the grown-ups talked about more mature topics. The TV took every kind of conversation and threw it into the middle of the living room with your 4-year-old. (Or 15-year-old, for that matter). Adult talk radically changed. Perhaps the net is doing the same thing with small social groups -- eliminating them as a place where local norms can be far outside what most people would find polite. Everything now is just in one big bucket. If so, it promises a more radical change to human society than anything we've seen so far.

lukev 10y ago
I disagree completely. If anything, larger groups need to be more sensitive to context. I can make "offensive" jokes all day with a couple friends over beers, because nobody is going to actually be offended. If I'm speaking at a large conference, I need to be more careful, make sure I'm not inadvertently hurting people without even thinking about it.
- generic_user 10y ago
  You really can not have a large 'inclusive' group unless you lower the expectation that the people in that group share your personal definition of what is offensive and what is friendly etc. Thats what makes it inclusive, you have a wide range of people with different opinions and viewpoints that are in a group to share some common interest. Not everyone in the group is going to like or respect everyone else at every level. Thats simply the reality of a large group. What we see with the SJW purges is the opposite of inclusion. There is a very narrow ideological purity test being applied to anyone who wants to be in the group or be a speaker. You end up with a group that is an intellectual and cultural monoculture with a strict power hierarchy and 'punishment' for anyone who does not agree with the gospel handed down by the authority. The community eventually falls apart because they rightly see that the organisation has been taken over by a power hungry clique who wants to impose there one true way to participate on everyone else. Its a really corrosive dynamic. Just because the people doing this have some clever rhetorical devices and use 'inclusion' and 'equally' does not make them any less self serving and power hungry. And they really are trying to make exclusive monoculture with only the 'right' kind of people allowed in.
CWuestefeld 10y ago
You make a great point about TV. I'd like to go farther. We've evolved to function in small tribal groups, and that we instinctively want to do so in all sorts of contexts, be they political, economic, etc. But the fact is that the incentives that allow this to work on a tribal scale break down when we try to apply them so broadly. F.A. Hayek argues that this is a big part of the "Fatal Conceit" through which socialists wrongly believe that they can successfully manage an economy (and thus a society).
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Yes, it's the same fallacy just in a different context. I feel like mankind is having final exams and although we were given all the answers, none of us have studied very much. Whether it's the efficient allocation of resources, the nature of public versus private discourse, the necessity of reproducibility in science, or the overuse of aggregate data and correlation as a proxy for causation -- there are a bunch of fundamental topics we all need to be on the same page about. This is because they're all converging together as we as a species converge together online.

lukev 10y ago

I disagree completely. If anything, larger groups need to be more sensitive to context. I can make "offensive" jokes all day with a couple friends over beers, because nobody is going to actually be offended. If I'm speaking at a large conference, I need to be more careful, make sure I'm not inadvertently hurting people without even thinking about it.

generic_user 10y ago
You really can not have a large 'inclusive' group unless you lower the expectation that the people in that group share your personal definition of what is offensive and what is friendly etc. Thats what makes it inclusive, you have a wide range of people with different opinions and viewpoints that are in a group to share some common interest. Not everyone in the group is going to like or respect everyone else at every level. Thats simply the reality of a large group. What we see with the SJW purges is the opposite of inclusion. There is a very narrow ideological purity test being applied to anyone who wants to be in the group or be a speaker. You end up with a group that is an intellectual and cultural monoculture with a strict power hierarchy and 'punishment' for anyone who does not agree with the gospel handed down by the authority. The community eventually falls apart because they rightly see that the organisation has been taken over by a power hungry clique who wants to impose there one true way to participate on everyone else. Its a really corrosive dynamic. Just because the people doing this have some clever rhetorical devices and use 'inclusion' and 'equally' does not make them any less self serving and power hungry. And they really are trying to make exclusive monoculture with only the 'right' kind of people allowed in.

CWuestefeld 10y ago

You make a great point about TV. I'd like to go farther. We've evolved to function in small tribal groups, and that we instinctively want to do so in all sorts of contexts, be they political, economic, etc. But the fact is that the incentives that allow this to work on a tribal scale break down when we try to apply them so broadly. F.A. Hayek argues that this is a big part of the "Fatal Conceit" through which socialists wrongly believe that they can successfully manage an economy (and thus a society).

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Yes, it's the same fallacy just in a different context. I feel like mankind is having final exams and although we were given all the answers, none of us have studied very much. Whether it's the efficient allocation of resources, the nature of public versus private discourse, the necessity of reproducibility in science, or the overuse of aggregate data and correlation as a proxy for causation -- there are a bunch of fundamental topics we all need to be on the same page about. This is because they're all converging together as we as a species converge together online.