3 ms·

Or you have standards of discourse. I was on a moderated email list at one point that had extremely strict ones, including that anyone could call on you to prod

Or you have standards of discourse. I was on a moderated email list at one point that had extremely strict ones, including that anyone could call on you to produce primary sources for your assertions at any time. You could post further until you did so or you withdrew the assertion. It also had forbidden topics, including religion and politics. Very specific topics that verged in those areas could be discussed, but general positions were simply not acceptable discourse on the list. The list was pre-moderated, mind you: every message passed through a moderator before posting, and might be returned to you. It was extremely labor intensive and basically had a full time moderator.

curiousgeorgio 7y ago
That's great for limited circles wherein everyone understands and wants to play by the rules. For the larger public (i.e., Facebook), it's not really scalable without falling into de facto authoritarianism. The "edge cases" in one part of the world might be the voices needed to defend freedom in another, and once you start applying a different set of rules in different scenarios or making exceptions, you've lost impartiality. My response was directed more at people who avoid public discourse simply because they feel a need to correct people all the time. Funny thing is, real reason and facts don't need justice warriors. Science skeptics, fake news, and conspiracy theorists have always existed. Shouting matches haven't solved any of those problems. With time, wrong ideas tend to die naturally when thoughts and ideas (even wrong ones!) can flow freely and respectfully.
- madhadron 7y ago
  > Funny thing is, real reason and facts don't need justice warriors. I don't know if that's really true...
  - kixiQu 7y ago
    Sounds like it could use sources for the assertion. ;)
  - curiousgeorgio 7y ago
    Try changing a flat-Earther's mind using rhetoric, reason, and facts. Probably not going to happen. On the other hand, geocentrism took a long time to die, but when it did, it wasn't because justice warriors were shouting louder (though many tried); it was simply a fact that could be independently verified by more and more people. Real scientists don't launch marketing campaigns when they've made a discovery. They publish it in a journal and invite others to verify (or disprove) their findings. You don't change people's minds by telling them what the truth is. You show them how to discover the truth for themselves and let them draw their own conclusions. But don't take my word for it :) Look for the pattern in history and you'll see.
- v21 7y ago
  the article we're discussing this under is explicitly about advocating for such smaller spaces, and arguing against having to make everything scale to cover the entire world. not a public discourse, a private one.

curiousgeorgio 7y ago

That's great for limited circles wherein everyone understands and wants to play by the rules. For the larger public (i.e., Facebook), it's not really scalable without falling into de facto authoritarianism. The "edge cases" in one part of the world might be the voices needed to defend freedom in another, and once you start applying a different set of rules in different scenarios or making exceptions, you've lost impartiality. My response was directed more at people who avoid public discourse simply because they feel a need to correct people all the time. Funny thing is, real reason and facts don't need justice warriors. Science skeptics, fake news, and conspiracy theorists have always existed. Shouting matches haven't solved any of those problems. With time, wrong ideas tend to die naturally when thoughts and ideas (even wrong ones!) can flow freely and respectfully.

madhadron 7y ago
> Funny thing is, real reason and facts don't need justice warriors. I don't know if that's really true...
- kixiQu 7y ago
  Sounds like it could use sources for the assertion. ;)
- curiousgeorgio 7y ago
  Try changing a flat-Earther's mind using rhetoric, reason, and facts. Probably not going to happen. On the other hand, geocentrism took a long time to die, but when it did, it wasn't because justice warriors were shouting louder (though many tried); it was simply a fact that could be independently verified by more and more people. Real scientists don't launch marketing campaigns when they've made a discovery. They publish it in a journal and invite others to verify (or disprove) their findings. You don't change people's minds by telling them what the truth is. You show them how to discover the truth for themselves and let them draw their own conclusions. But don't take my word for it :) Look for the pattern in history and you'll see.
v21 7y ago
the article we're discussing this under is explicitly about advocating for such smaller spaces, and arguing against having to make everything scale to cover the entire world. not a public discourse, a private one.