3 ms·

On the other hand, such constraints on large communities can sometimes allow small communities to perform norm enforcement. For example, that same amendment ma

On the other hand, such constraints on large communities can sometimes allow small communities to perform norm enforcement. For example, that same amendment makes it illegal to prevent a church to subjecting gay minors to various forms of norm enforcement. Size seems like a misnomer here.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
It makes it unconstitutional for a law to do that. It doesn't stop private citizens from exerting social pressure on churches to not do that, e.g. by shaming them in public.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  1. Not always. Small institutions often have totalizing influence, and escaping small communities is often easier said than done. 2. There's nothing stopping private citizens from exerting social pressure on large corporations either. Again, institutional size is a red herring in this conversation. Every argument that small is better than large or vice versa works symmetrically with plenty of real world examples. It's almost like size is a totally orthogonal issue.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    No, size matters quite a lot when it's the large institution enforcing norms. If you're openly gay and your church hates gay people, you can stop going to church or go to a different one. The smaller the church is, the easier that is. If you're openly gay and the USSR hates gay people, you're probably gonna get murdered.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      > If you're openly gay and your church hates gay people, you can stop going to church or go to a different one. Yes, the difficulty of escaping a norm enforcing institution is an important desiderata. More important than size. The social dynamics of cults are a (politically acceptable) counter-point. Leaving a small and insular community is rarely so trivial. > If you're openly gay and the USSR hates gay people, you're probably gonna get murdered. This conversation started with a discussion of large social media sites and you keep bringing up authoritarian governments to prove "big = bad". Yes, escaping a nation-state is difficult. But if you're on a political extreme and don't like a social media site's speech rules, just don't use that social media site. And deleting a social media account is infinitely easier than abandoning the social group / town where you grew up. So here we are again. This game is becoming a bit silly, so let me unroll an infinitely long thread by providing a template for the next 5,000 replies: you: "X1 is small and X1 is good but X2 is big and X2 is bad." other commenters: "X3 is big and X3 is good but X4 is small and X4 is bad" occasionally: "Nuh-uh X{$n} is not so bad" me: "X5 is small and bad, X6 is big and good, X7 is small and good, X8 is big and bad. It's almost like there are features other than size that better unify toxic norm enforcing communities."

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

It makes it unconstitutional for a law to do that. It doesn't stop private citizens from exerting social pressure on churches to not do that, e.g. by shaming them in public.

throwawaygh 5y ago
1. Not always. Small institutions often have totalizing influence, and escaping small communities is often easier said than done. 2. There's nothing stopping private citizens from exerting social pressure on large corporations either. Again, institutional size is a red herring in this conversation. Every argument that small is better than large or vice versa works symmetrically with plenty of real world examples. It's almost like size is a totally orthogonal issue.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  No, size matters quite a lot when it's the large institution enforcing norms. If you're openly gay and your church hates gay people, you can stop going to church or go to a different one. The smaller the church is, the easier that is. If you're openly gay and the USSR hates gay people, you're probably gonna get murdered.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    > If you're openly gay and your church hates gay people, you can stop going to church or go to a different one. Yes, the difficulty of escaping a norm enforcing institution is an important desiderata. More important than size. The social dynamics of cults are a (politically acceptable) counter-point. Leaving a small and insular community is rarely so trivial. > If you're openly gay and the USSR hates gay people, you're probably gonna get murdered. This conversation started with a discussion of large social media sites and you keep bringing up authoritarian governments to prove "big = bad". Yes, escaping a nation-state is difficult. But if you're on a political extreme and don't like a social media site's speech rules, just don't use that social media site. And deleting a social media account is infinitely easier than abandoning the social group / town where you grew up. So here we are again. This game is becoming a bit silly, so let me unroll an infinitely long thread by providing a template for the next 5,000 replies: you: "X1 is small and X1 is good but X2 is big and X2 is bad." other commenters: "X3 is big and X3 is good but X4 is small and X4 is bad" occasionally: "Nuh-uh X{$n} is not so bad" me: "X5 is small and bad, X6 is big and good, X7 is small and good, X8 is big and bad. It's almost like there are features other than size that better unify toxic norm enforcing communities."