> > I guess you are saying you want a homogeneous
> > group where everyone agrees on what is offensive and
> everyone has the
> > same opinions, whereas I prefer or diverse group of
> tolerant people who
> > can discuss anything.
<Butting In>
Do your really prefer this, or are you posturing yourself as an
'enlightened' individual, "open" to new ideas. What you suggest is that
tolerance is a criteria for successfully belonging to this 'group'. Yet
there has to be a boundary for this tolerance. Is not past this boundary
where everyone agrees on what is offensive? Is not the difference in
tolerances that generates many responses to messages?
For example:
A bigot against Nerds (heheheheeee...nerds...) subscribes to the list. He
immedately states that he is tolerant of everyone except nerds. He uses
three arguments/ideas to support his belief. He believes that his ideas are
not a form of bigotry, but are logically deduced from his logical arguement.
He is tolerant of nerds, but finds them offensive (especially the smell),
and takes every opportunity to express his feelings toward the subject.
So, do the other members tolerate his 'diversity' because he does not find
'bigotry' against nerds to be offensive. In fact, he disagrees upon what
bigotry is with the group. If they do not tolerate bigotry (or his
arguements for what is bigotry), then this diverse group of tolerant people
have become the 'homogeneous group where everyone agrees on what is
offensive'. If they do tolerate him, then they are sharing the 'same
opinions' regarding bigotry - exactly opposite of what you prefer..
As you can see... the issues are not as black/white as you envision. Replace
'nerds' with black people, jews, whites, Mark, Jeroen, Americans,
Europeans.... and it becomes even more clouded. This Brin-l contains
elements of both commonality and diversity. They cannot be separated without
causing dicotomies and perhaps contradictions - One has to be tolerant, and
intolerant, and they both have to fall within some union boundary everyone
shares. This is an inherent quality of groups, especially Brin-l, where the
union boundaries are very broad. Without these broad boundaries, this list
would be rather boring. The fact that there is a lot of discussion suggests
that Brin-l is what you want it to be.
Nick, different subject: have you considered trying to gain metrics on
discussion threads based upon theoretical social boundaries, to come up with
a "Quotent" or matrix of ...tolerance, intolerance, diversity, or
commonality of values?
Or is this one of those contexual problems in processing mail threads to
understand the context of the message? I am just thinking out loud here...
bear with me...
Nerd From Hell (got a problem wit' dat!)
>
> You don't know what I believe, then. And you clearly don't
> understand what
> kind of rules are necessary for freedom to think creatively,
> which is real
> freedom of thought and speech. "Discuss" is an awfully kind
> word for what
> you and Jeroen have been doing here.
>
> Nick
>
>
