[extropy-chat] META: ExI List Quality & Future

[Adrian Tymes]

--- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> > --- "kevinfreels.com" <kevin at kevinfreels.com> wrote:
> > > This is BS. Plain and simple. Since when was shutting out
> those
> > > deemed
> > > "inferior" been any benefit to any society?
> >
> > See: jails, crime, economic effects of crime.
> 
> No, jail is not for "inferior" people. It is for people who
> break the
> laws
> that govern society. This list has rules which serve the same
> purpose.

It would, perhaps, be superior to enforce the rules, and to make
sure the rules clearly forbid off-topic discussions such as
those that spurred these proposals.  But the list administration
is apparently claiming that they are no longer capable of said
enforcement by the usual means, as they no longer have the time
to do so.  (Moderation was supposedly delegated to list members
- but normal list members have no power to enforce the rules
when, as has happened, those who continue the  off-topic
discussions ignore requests to cease them on the list.)

So, perhaps an alternate solution would be to find new
moderators who have both the time to tend to said duties, and
the willpower to enforce the rules (including temporary banning
for continuing off-topic discussions after the mods have said
it's time to stop them - and perhaps to set the limit a little
tighter on when something counts as "off-topic" than it has been
in practice) when necessary.

> On another note, it is interesting how you seem to think of
> criminals
> as
> "inferior" and "inferior" people as potential criminals.

The former is a correct perception in this particular case; the
latter is not.  You asked for an example of *those deemed as
inferior*, and certainly criminals have been a class of people
that many societies have historically labelled as inferior, and
some societies have been able to measure improvements to various
qualities they care about as a result of shutting out those who
violate the law.  In this case, the label of "inferior" comes as
a result of the violation, so there is no "potential" about it:
criminals are only labelled "inferior" after they break the law.

> I
> wasn;t
> aware that
> ignorance was a crime.

I wasn't discussing ignorance.  I was discussing off-topic
discussions, off-topic to the point that they either are or
should be (given the purpose of this list) in violation of this
list's rules.

> > "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they
> also
> > laughed at Bozo the Clown."
> 
> Right, so using YOUR point,

I quoted it to indicate it's someone else's words.  :P

> since Bozo is an idiot, we should have
> ignored
> Newton as well?

Yes - if and when Newton cared to discuss cults and similar
things outside of this topic's list.  The theory of gravity was
not the only thing to come from his mouth.  Of course, proposal
of a new scientific theory with evidence (like, say, if he was
alive today and came up with a coherent theory of quanum
gravity) might merit listening to - whether stated by Bozo or
by Newton.

It's the what, not the who, that matters in this case.

> Personally I would prefer to see bozo speaking here
> as I can
> always choose to ignore him.

Many on this list have tried just that.  The problem comes when
most of the list's content should be ignored - as has happened
for quite a few people of late.  The logical choice then is to
ignore all of the list, and unsubscribe - but then that also
ignores any valuable content, of which there has been some in
the past.  Many people here would prefer not to lose that
valuable content.

> It's much better than the
> alternative.

The alternative being to say, "You can discuss it, but not
here".  This is not a government-run forum; there is no absolute
right to free speech.  The speech that occurs here costs the
forum's maintainers, so they have every right to say that it
should be limited to topics they care about.  (Libertarianism
may be fine for things that everyone pays for, but when's the
last time that most of us sent a penny in to ExI?)

> How
> about a simple analogy? Your argument would have Martin Luther
> King
> Jr.
> presenting his speaches before a government committee to
> approve
> before he
> was allowed to go out and speak.

Your misunderstanding of my words is so severe as to border on
an insult, but I choose to believe that was not how you meant
it.  That said, here are two major errors in your analogy:

* This is a private forum, and this matter is about something
  where the rules for government are dramatically different from
  the rules for private forums.

* Even ignoring that, in the analogy, this would be like a judge
  saying that MLK can't given his speech on civil rights in a
  court case about a parking ticket where everyone involved -
  offender, police officer, et cetera - was white, and therfore
  civil rights and race relations did not enter into it.  This
  would not prevent MLK from preaching to the public at large,
  just prevent him from disrupting a court case with something
  totally irrelevant.  (Which the real MLK knew better than to
  do anyway: he knew that such an approach would just make
  those involved in the case less willing to listen to his
  words, without gaining his movement anything.)