4 ms·

I agree that if there are rules, it's much better to make them explicit instead of implicit. I also think your example makes sense, but I'm not sure it applies

I agree that if there are rules, it's much better to make them explicit instead of implicit. I also think your example makes sense, but I'm not sure it applies to larger groups or public forums. There are simply too many people to avoid discussing every topic that could offend someone. I'm not saying overt racism or homophobia is okay, but especially when it comes to humor it's almost unavoidable that it can hit too close to home for someone who sees it. In public discussions there has to be some baseline ability by the reader to accept that they can be offended while the value of what was said to the rest of the audience may outweigh their own feelings. The implicit rules of what is acceptable to talk about, especially online, have been getting stricter to the point of being ridiculous in my experience.

TuringTest 6y ago
> In public discussions there has to be some baseline ability by the reader to accept that they can be offended while the value of what was said to the rest of the audience may outweigh their own feelings. The implicit rules of what is acceptable to talk about, especially online, have been getting stricter to the point of being ridiculous in my experience. Quite agree. Thus my proposal to create smaller, more controlled discussion groups. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to build a code of conduct that will satisfy all participants.
- lucaspm98 6y ago
  I think that's a great idea, at the very least it filters out a lot of spam and ideally gives you more context about each individual so if something controversial is said you can put it into context with them as a whole. I just worry that these smaller discussion groups are becoming more and more rare online, but maybe the current craziness will lead to their resurgence.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
I agree with that. But like I said, that's a different problem. The "stricter to the point of being ridiculous" is a Purity Spiral, and that's a known phenomenom in human commnication that occurs in all sorts of settings. It's not new, and it's not restricted to online conversations. Also hard to escape. The core reasoning behind Codes of Conduct is sound.
- lucaspm98 6y ago
  I totally agree. What can taint the idea is having the Code of Conduct intentionally vague or selectively enforced, but the core idea is much better than unspoken norms.

TuringTest 6y ago

> In public discussions there has to be some baseline ability by the reader to accept that they can be offended while the value of what was said to the rest of the audience may outweigh their own feelings. The implicit rules of what is acceptable to talk about, especially online, have been getting stricter to the point of being ridiculous in my experience. Quite agree. Thus my proposal to create smaller, more controlled discussion groups. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to build a code of conduct that will satisfy all participants.

lucaspm98 6y ago
I think that's a great idea, at the very least it filters out a lot of spam and ideally gives you more context about each individual so if something controversial is said you can put it into context with them as a whole. I just worry that these smaller discussion groups are becoming more and more rare online, but maybe the current craziness will lead to their resurgence.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

I agree with that. But like I said, that's a different problem. The "stricter to the point of being ridiculous" is a Purity Spiral, and that's a known phenomenom in human commnication that occurs in all sorts of settings. It's not new, and it's not restricted to online conversations. Also hard to escape. The core reasoning behind Codes of Conduct is sound.

lucaspm98 6y ago
I totally agree. What can taint the idea is having the Code of Conduct intentionally vague or selectively enforced, but the core idea is much better than unspoken norms.