4 ms·

What are you saying? This doesn't really make much sense. Are you arguing that inviting someone into your house, a stranger or not, means that they can demand w

by yladiz 10y ago

What are you saying? This doesn't really make much sense. Are you arguing that inviting someone into your house, a stranger or not, means that they can demand whatever they want and you have no right to kick them out? Sorry if I'm not following but the idea of primary and secondary intention doesn't really make sense to me. This argument is not about creating a "perfect social circle" with only specific people who have the same view points as you, it's that you can have someone who believes wildly different things than you but they are expected to be nice and treat the invitation into a community with respect, e.g. be nice, rather than do whatever they want. And if they disrespect the invitation, they have consequences.

webwanderings 10y ago
> ...means that they can demand whatever What I am simply saying is that setting such an expectation (via rules and enforcement) is unnatural for humans. People are not going to "demand whatever" because they are not nice. You should expect them to demand whatever, even if they are nice. What I am really trying to say is further explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978
- yladiz 10y ago
  But just because they can demand whatever does not mean you have to fulfill their request.
  - webwanderings 10y ago
    But now that's a different point altogether, isn't it? We were not talking about whether one should fulfill the demands or not. This also does not imply that the implicit rules can be automatically enforced. If you agree that the rule-setting is unnatural under such context (i.e, the context of an online community, dealing with humans and human nature), then you would agree that you should first fix your own expectations. If you read my comment about the Scott Peck's framework, then you can see that at the first stage, humans are generally nice to each other in any group setting. This is a modern condition: the consequences of civilized societies. But humans also tend to reach the second stage, where they are totally not nice to each other. If you read him directly, you'll get the better idea. This argument of freedom of speech, or lack there of, is misguided and misplaced in my opinion. It tends to come up at every opportunity (every normalized social network now initially had this argument when they started in the beginning - and we're still having this misplaced argument.

by yladiz 10y ago

webwanderings 10y ago

> ...means that they can demand whatever What I am simply saying is that setting such an expectation (via rules and enforcement) is unnatural for humans. People are not going to "demand whatever" because they are not nice. You should expect them to demand whatever, even if they are nice. What I am really trying to say is further explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978

yladiz 10y ago
But just because they can demand whatever does not mean you have to fulfill their request.
- webwanderings 10y ago
  But now that's a different point altogether, isn't it? We were not talking about whether one should fulfill the demands or not. This also does not imply that the implicit rules can be automatically enforced. If you agree that the rule-setting is unnatural under such context (i.e, the context of an online community, dealing with humans and human nature), then you would agree that you should first fix your own expectations. If you read my comment about the Scott Peck's framework, then you can see that at the first stage, humans are generally nice to each other in any group setting. This is a modern condition: the consequences of civilized societies. But humans also tend to reach the second stage, where they are totally not nice to each other. If you read him directly, you'll get the better idea. This argument of freedom of speech, or lack there of, is misguided and misplaced in my opinion. It tends to come up at every opportunity (every normalized social network now initially had this argument when they started in the beginning - and we're still having this misplaced argument.