On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 06:13:45PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Eric sees it as a place for no holds bar discussion. His view is that > this is a prerequisite for open minded discussions.
I wouldn't go that far. But I think the list can be MORE diverse and interesting if people aren't forced to wonder what they can and can't post before writing. No doubt you will say that it is not true and cite the recent thread between myself and Jeroen as being not worthwhile. Say what you want about the thread, it certainly was interesting, got a lot of attention, and got a number of people thinking about several interesting topics. I'd say that was worthwhile. I certainly got something out of it. I dare say even Jeroen may eventually get some sort of fulfillment out of it. > A desire for civility is mocked as being overly sensitive. Your "desire for civility" is really just a euphemism for you thinking your opinions and morals are more right than another's, and should be applied to everyone. Well, I have no problem with that as long as you try to do it by writing and persuading. But if the merest hint of possible future coercion is there in the message (or implied from context or past history), then I think you are being intolerant and that is a bad thing. > He appears to be singular among the people who have written on this > subject. Indeed, I'd bet money that most people who have posted on > _any_ subject in the last month have written a post that differs with > Erik's point of view on this subject. Too many weasel words -- no bet. But out of all the subscribers to Brin-L, if even a few of them have a viewpoint similar to mine, then it is wrong of you to act like you are speaking for the group. Majority rule can easily become repression of other viewpoints in a situation such as this. The US Constitution has the Bill of Rights to protect against the tyranny of the majority. > 1) it had some interesting people with unique knowledge and viewpoints > 2) it was a place were controversial ideas could be discussed civilly. I think it still has lots of interesting people. And I think there have been several recent controversial ideas that were discussed and that a number of people got something out of the discussion. > I would venture that, if you look at uncivil and civil discussions, > the depth of ideas in civil discussions is far greater than forums > where flame wars rule. I would venture that, if you look at restricted and unrestricted discussions, the breadth and diversity of ideas in unrestricted discussions is far greater than forums where some people try to forcibly impose their viewpoints on others. > However, rude behavior is not an expression of an idea. This statement is full of opinion and moral judgement masked to look like an absolute. What is rude is opinion, and yours differs from mine. And even some things that I imagine you consider rude CAN be a good way of conveying and idea to someone else (not everyone learns the same way, eg., sticking your hand in someone's face; rude, you say? not if you are blind). So, your statement is not only misleading, it is wrong. > Good ideas can be expressed civilly. Upsetting email list posts can be ignored. > So, trolling, list-bombing, flame wars, etc. need not be acceptable > behavior for even the most open minded groups. So, one need not impose one's own viewpoints on another, even in the most intolerant of groups. > Those are behaviors, not ideas. That is your opinion, not fact. Everything can be thought about, and therefore can be an idea. > He seems to honestly believe that its no big deal to delete > undesirable mail or to ignore threads. It is no big deal. I've given examples of how easy it is. > His attitude appears to be that folks who do not use technology to > handle things the way he does have only themselves to blame when they > read messages that bother them. No, why should they have to use technology the way I do? They can use it in their own way, naturally. But no one has a right to not be bothered that takes precedence over someone elses right to express themselves, when it is easily possible to ignore the bother. > I think, and Erik can correct me if I am wrong, that he thinks that > the idea of a virtual community is quaint '60s nonsense. Well, not exactly. I thing Brin-L is full of interesting people and entertaining and stimulating discussions. That might be considered a community. My disagreement is with people who say that one cannot post something that upsets the majority of the "community", and justify it with peace & love. I am a member of a civilization does NOT mean that everyone must bend their thoughts to the majority opinion, it means that we should tolerate others the way they are and infringe on others life and liberty as minimally as possible while trying to achieve what we desire, either by ourselves or with like-minded individuals. Didn't Brin himself talk about the hive-mind or Gaia-mind and how that was not as desirable to him as a diverse and tolerant society? (That isn't rhetorical; I remember something like that from him but I could be mistaking him for another) > He is more than welcome to express the view that we are all foolish > for differing with him. That should be his right. Minority > viewpoints should not be trampled upon. Hey, we agree! > However, it is reasonable to request that he respect other people's > wishes to take flame wars offline. Bring-I was founded by and, > mostly, peopled by folks who want a civil forum. It is not closed > minded to want civility. Hey, we disagree! One of the most likely ways to earn my respect is to be tolerant of others when they aren't forcing themselves upon you. A great way to lose some of my respect is to claim that your notion of civility is more right than mine, when mine does not force anything upon you. > The real question is what happens when one member's view of what > Bring-I should be is at odds with the majority of posters. IMHO, it > is reasonable for the single person to refrain from forcing his/her > view on the rest of the folks. Yes, exactly. And the individual can't force, since emails can easily be ignored (and I never try anything more forceful than a persuasive email). You, on the other hand, would appear to be capable of voting to ban someone who did nothing more than post some emails that you consider uncivil. That is forcing your view on folks. > The question is whether civility, as understood by the community as a > whole, should be ignored by someone who feels no need for anyone to be > civil. If someone "feels no need for anyone to be 'civil'", then it is NOT understood by the community as a WHOLE. Again we get into tyranny of the majority. Or, to use a more loaded name, the Moral Majority. "It may be taken as an axiom that the majority is always wrong in cultural matters. Politically I believe in democracy, but culturally, not at all. Whenever a cultural matter rolls up a majority, I know it's wrong." --John Sloan -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
