7 ms·

> The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not. Do you mean that a

> The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not. Do you mean that a community could allow argument X, but disallow counter-argument Y? That sounds like a recipe for an echo chamber. I definitely see the benefit in saying that certain topics are out of scope for a given community. But saying which ideas are acceptable and which are not sounds like codifying the dominance of an official viewpoint.

danielheath 6y ago
Every stable community already has things you can and cannot say (try arguing the merits of pederasty, war, or heroin and see how far you get!)
- haberman 6y ago
  I agree that there are almost always some guardrails in place, and certain viewpoints that are considered beyond the pale. And so there is a balancing act between an Overton Window that is too wide and wastes people's time with nonsense, and one that is too narrow and prevents bad orthodoxies from being challenged.
  - TheNorthman 6y ago
    How are implicit guardrails better than specified guardrails? Surely explicit guardrails act as therapeutic discourse, in that it seeks to clarify systematic self-deception. By self-deception, I refer first-and-foremost to the myth of objectivity that often surrounds contemporary debate.
    - michaelt 6y ago
      Because moderators are trying to stop flamewars - not jump into the middle and fight both sides.
      - TheNorthman 6y ago
        I suppose that's a matter of definition and, in any-case, falls victim to the is-ought problem. I fail to see why moderators should police tone over content and I'm not convinced this is even the case.
        Retric 6y ago
        Tone drives people away faster than content. A civil discussion with someone you disagree with is very different than the all caps hate fest you see without any form of moderation.
- Retric 6y ago
  Challenge accepted. Pederasty is so far from our cultural norms it’s current form is meaningless compared to a socially accepted version. In a society with active mentoring of youth by people across the gender and sexual orientation spectrum pederasty would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion. War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery. Heroin is an opioid and can be used as such. It’s current stigma is associated with recreational uses, but it can easily be used for chronic pain in a hospice instead of similar opioids. PS: IMO the real reason to segregate ideas across forms is to avoid having the same conversations everywhere. Bringing up politics means people talk about politics rather than whatever the original subject was.
  - Kye 6y ago
    >> "War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery." The struggle between people who believe in this and people who don't is more or less the plot of Babylon 5. The show actually moved me closer to the Shadow position: excessive stability is as much a problem as excessive chaos. Civilization seems to find a balance on the long view.
  - snikeris 6y ago
    > War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery. War destroys progress and is incredibly inefficient. The mere threat of war creates an endless arms race resulting in half of discretionary spending going to defense. The reason for submitting to government authority is for protection of life and liberty. War results in destruction of life and reduced liberty, so it's a major failure in that regard. "Sorry ma'am, but your son died in the Great Stress Test of 1861. I know you just spent your last nineteen years raising him, but we weren't sure if slavery was efficient or not, so we needed him to help settle the question on the battlefield."
    - Retric 6y ago
- TuringTest 6y ago
  > Every stable community already has things you can and cannot say My point is that every stable community has a different subset of things that you cannot say. It's easy to create a group where pederasty, war or heroin can be freely discussed or praised. The problem nowadays appears when utterances aimed to that specific group are picked up and propagated by the general network, reaching people who were not their intended targets and who didn't share the original channel's assumptions for what can and cannot be said.
Kye 6y ago
I can't think of many instances of someone sharing a "controversial" opinion where they weren't just regurgitating tired old arguments that are trivially discredited. The easy response is: well if they're trivially rebutted, why not just rebut them? That works once. Twice. Twenty times. It doesn't take long before these "just raising the controversy" comments overwhelm sincere and thought-provoking discussion. A rhetorical DDoS/DoS works the same way a technological one does. There are a few small, well-moderated communities/outlets where people have gone a level or two past propaganda and stereotypes, but they come into the discussion with an open mind. I can at least feel like, if I found the right angle, I might persuade them toward my viewpoint. And most importantly: people come into those spaces knowing what to expect. I expect to see some serious discussion over whether or not I deserve equal rights, for example, but I don't feel like it's futile the way I do with people coming in with a roster of thought-terminating cliches and propaganda as a cover for hate.
- rimliu 6y ago
  By "trivially discredited" do you mean just slapping some "-ist" label and boom, it is done?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > regurgitating tired old arguments that are trivially discredited who judges this? fundamentals of human right are often old, who decides they are tired or outdated? If they are constantly repeated, then either they aren't considered rebutted, or the rebuttal rarely spreads, and that is the thing that needs to be investigated. We need to identify "thought-terminating cliches and propaganda" via a bipartisan standard. The current standards seem to be "your propaganda is propaganda, my propaganda is defence".
TuringTest 6y ago
> I definitely see the benefit in saying that certain topics are out of scope for a given community. But saying which ideas are acceptable and which are not sounds like codifying the dominance of an official viewpoint. Yeah, exactly. But any anthropologist or sociologist will tell you that any social group works exactly that way, it's an inevitable reality of being social humans. The trick to support freedom of expression isn't forcing all possible communication forums to accept all possible topics and ideas; it's to create cross-pollination groups where some ideas that are taboo in other forums can be discussed in an adequate context. University used to be such a forum intended for cross-pollination and having a different set of taboos than the mainstream society, before it was hijacked by the dynamics of social networks.

danielheath 6y ago

Every stable community already has things you can and cannot say (try arguing the merits of pederasty, war, or heroin and see how far you get!)

haberman 6y ago
I agree that there are almost always some guardrails in place, and certain viewpoints that are considered beyond the pale. And so there is a balancing act between an Overton Window that is too wide and wastes people's time with nonsense, and one that is too narrow and prevents bad orthodoxies from being challenged.
- TheNorthman 6y ago
  How are implicit guardrails better than specified guardrails? Surely explicit guardrails act as therapeutic discourse, in that it seeks to clarify systematic self-deception. By self-deception, I refer first-and-foremost to the myth of objectivity that often surrounds contemporary debate.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    Because moderators are trying to stop flamewars - not jump into the middle and fight both sides.
    - TheNorthman 6y ago
      I suppose that's a matter of definition and, in any-case, falls victim to the is-ought problem. I fail to see why moderators should police tone over content and I'm not convinced this is even the case.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Tone drives people away faster than content. A civil discussion with someone you disagree with is very different than the all caps hate fest you see without any form of moderation.
Retric 6y ago
Challenge accepted. Pederasty is so far from our cultural norms it’s current form is meaningless compared to a socially accepted version. In a society with active mentoring of youth by people across the gender and sexual orientation spectrum pederasty would reduce the stigma’s associated with homosexuals thus increasing social cohesion. War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery. Heroin is an opioid and can be used as such. It’s current stigma is associated with recreational uses, but it can easily be used for chronic pain in a hospice instead of similar opioids. PS: IMO the real reason to segregate ideas across forms is to avoid having the same conversations everywhere. Bringing up politics means people talk about politics rather than whatever the original subject was.
- Kye 6y ago
  >> "War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery." The struggle between people who believe in this and people who don't is more or less the plot of Babylon 5. The show actually moved me closer to the Shadow position: excessive stability is as much a problem as excessive chaos. Civilization seems to find a balance on the long view.
- snikeris 6y ago
  > War is a stress test for societies. By destroying less efficient social structures it promotes long term progress and reduces inefficient practices like slavery. War destroys progress and is incredibly inefficient. The mere threat of war creates an endless arms race resulting in half of discretionary spending going to defense. The reason for submitting to government authority is for protection of life and liberty. War results in destruction of life and reduced liberty, so it's a major failure in that regard. "Sorry ma'am, but your son died in the Great Stress Test of 1861. I know you just spent your last nineteen years raising him, but we weren't sure if slavery was efficient or not, so we needed him to help settle the question on the battlefield."
  - Retric 6y ago
TuringTest 6y ago
> Every stable community already has things you can and cannot say My point is that every stable community has a different subset of things that you cannot say. It's easy to create a group where pederasty, war or heroin can be freely discussed or praised. The problem nowadays appears when utterances aimed to that specific group are picked up and propagated by the general network, reaching people who were not their intended targets and who didn't share the original channel's assumptions for what can and cannot be said.

Kye 6y ago

I can't think of many instances of someone sharing a "controversial" opinion where they weren't just regurgitating tired old arguments that are trivially discredited. The easy response is: well if they're trivially rebutted, why not just rebut them? That works once. Twice. Twenty times. It doesn't take long before these "just raising the controversy" comments overwhelm sincere and thought-provoking discussion. A rhetorical DDoS/DoS works the same way a technological one does. There are a few small, well-moderated communities/outlets where people have gone a level or two past propaganda and stereotypes, but they come into the discussion with an open mind. I can at least feel like, if I found the right angle, I might persuade them toward my viewpoint. And most importantly: people come into those spaces knowing what to expect. I expect to see some serious discussion over whether or not I deserve equal rights, for example, but I don't feel like it's futile the way I do with people coming in with a roster of thought-terminating cliches and propaganda as a cover for hate.

rimliu 6y ago
By "trivially discredited" do you mean just slapping some "-ist" label and boom, it is done?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Chris2048 6y ago
> regurgitating tired old arguments that are trivially discredited who judges this? fundamentals of human right are often old, who decides they are tired or outdated? If they are constantly repeated, then either they aren't considered rebutted, or the rebuttal rarely spreads, and that is the thing that needs to be investigated. We need to identify "thought-terminating cliches and propaganda" via a bipartisan standard. The current standards seem to be "your propaganda is propaganda, my propaganda is defence".

TuringTest 6y ago

> I definitely see the benefit in saying that certain topics are out of scope for a given community. But saying which ideas are acceptable and which are not sounds like codifying the dominance of an official viewpoint. Yeah, exactly. But any anthropologist or sociologist will tell you that any social group works exactly that way, it's an inevitable reality of being social humans. The trick to support freedom of expression isn't forcing all possible communication forums to accept all possible topics and ideas; it's to create cross-pollination groups where some ideas that are taboo in other forums can be discussed in an adequate context. University used to be such a forum intended for cross-pollination and having a different set of taboos than the mainstream society, before it was hijacked by the dynamics of social networks.