4 ms·

SATSQ. Behavior outside a community should have consequences inside it when it has consequences inside it. If your behavior outside of a community causes an u

SATSQ. Behavior outside a community should have consequences inside it when it has consequences inside it. If your behavior outside of a community causes an uproar and crisis inside the community when it becomes known, it has already had a consequence inside the community. It will already have future ramifications. All you can do at that point is decide whether you want the future ramifications to include a commendation, condemnation or silence from the community. Communities are not hermetically sealed environments. In my opinion it is silly and childish to pretend they are.

fzeroracer 9y ago
This is one of the issues with this debate. As you mentioned if your behavior has caused an uproar/crisis, then it already has and will have consequences. People might quit, they might get angry and so forth. When people seem to talk about consequence in this manner they seem to mean that 'People should stop caring about what other people have said or done', even if it means ignoring things like how a person believes you are literally a lesser human being due to some trait you were born with. 'Diversity of Thought' as a statement has been latched onto as being an excuse rather than its original purpose.
explainplease 9y ago
> when it becomes known When "it becomes known" is a matter of one person going on a moral crusade to destroy the other person's reputation and position because of something about them, wholly unrelated to the project, which they personally dislike--is it still valid for there to be "consequences" within the community? If so, it seems like only a matter of time for all of us, because surely all of us do things or hold opinions that someone else in a community we participate in would find unacceptable. Therefore, all that is required for anyone to destroy anyone else is to "cause an uproar and crisis" about them. What will you say when someone causes an uproar and crisis about you?
- saalweachter 9y ago
  I'm not going to say it doesn't suck. Unrequited love sucks. Losing an election sucks. Being kicked out of a community sucks. Losing your job sucks. Doesn't matter if you "deserve" it or not. Still sucks. Maybe it sucks more when there's malice in the revelation, than if someone just sent an email to the wrong mailing list or if two people unexpectedly ran into each other somewhere neither expected the other to be. But the bell has been rung. What do you want people to do, to treat their feelings like jurors, "that evidence has been obtained improperly, you are instructed to disregard it."?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - explainplease 9y ago
    > What do you want people to do, to treat their feelings like jurors, "that evidence has been obtained improperly, you are instructed to disregard it."? You seem to be saying that the feelings of anyone in a community should serve as a veto on anyone else's membership in the community. Am I understanding you correctly?

fzeroracer 9y ago

This is one of the issues with this debate. As you mentioned if your behavior has caused an uproar/crisis, then it already has and will have consequences. People might quit, they might get angry and so forth. When people seem to talk about consequence in this manner they seem to mean that 'People should stop caring about what other people have said or done', even if it means ignoring things like how a person believes you are literally a lesser human being due to some trait you were born with. 'Diversity of Thought' as a statement has been latched onto as being an excuse rather than its original purpose.

explainplease 9y ago

> when it becomes known When "it becomes known" is a matter of one person going on a moral crusade to destroy the other person's reputation and position because of something about them, wholly unrelated to the project, which they personally dislike--is it still valid for there to be "consequences" within the community? If so, it seems like only a matter of time for all of us, because surely all of us do things or hold opinions that someone else in a community we participate in would find unacceptable. Therefore, all that is required for anyone to destroy anyone else is to "cause an uproar and crisis" about them. What will you say when someone causes an uproar and crisis about you?

saalweachter 9y ago
I'm not going to say it doesn't suck. Unrequited love sucks. Losing an election sucks. Being kicked out of a community sucks. Losing your job sucks. Doesn't matter if you "deserve" it or not. Still sucks. Maybe it sucks more when there's malice in the revelation, than if someone just sent an email to the wrong mailing list or if two people unexpectedly ran into each other somewhere neither expected the other to be. But the bell has been rung. What do you want people to do, to treat their feelings like jurors, "that evidence has been obtained improperly, you are instructed to disregard it."?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- explainplease 9y ago
  > What do you want people to do, to treat their feelings like jurors, "that evidence has been obtained improperly, you are instructed to disregard it."? You seem to be saying that the feelings of anyone in a community should serve as a veto on anyone else's membership in the community. Am I understanding you correctly?