[ExI] Moderation on the ExiCh list

[Lee Corbin]

Dave Sill writes

 > The list owners and participants are free to state publicly
 > that they disagree with or find offensive anything posted to
 > the list. Removing messages from the archives is censorship...

I have *never* heard any thought before that anything of
the kind has been done or would be done. It was literally
unthinkable to me until you suggested it. Yes, in 1984
"he who controls the present controls the past", but
erasing memories here and now? Surely not.

I'm really sorry you brought that up. I think that I will
choose to continue to regard this as unthinkable, and not
think about it.

 > and indicates weakness on behalf of the owners/moderators
 > because it suggests that their pets ideas aren't viable on
 > a level playing field.

Yeah, well quite apart from them (they do own the list),
I'm most curious about what I am not understanding here
regarding those who want heavy censorship of the list.
We have (about six or seven months ago) been all through
this before---but still, I would like to understand. Sincerely.

Right now, all I have to go on is what Damien contributed,
which you quoted:

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> ... But to rehearse the obvious, this list is not a public
>> square, yet anything posted here can be read by anyone on the planet now or
>> in the future. Since the list owners and most other transhumanists don't
>> wish to be associated with outrageous proposals to (say) nuke or poison all
>> the Muslims in the world or even in a given country, or to forcibly banish
>> blacks and other "non-white" people "back to their own countries", it is
>> very reasonable to step in and remove or block posts making such
>> suggestions--even as thought experiments. If only on the same grounds that
>> one is well advised not to make bomb jokes while boarding a plane.
> 
> Sorry, but I can't agree with that. The list owners and participants
> are free to state publicly that they disagree with or find offensive
> anything posted to the list....

Let's read the words carefully, Dave. "[folks] don't wish to
be associated with outrageous proposals".  The key here may
be what is meant by "associated". I'm drawing a blank.

There *has* to be more going on here than just being loosely
associated with some reprehensible idea by having happened to
be "on" a list when said idea is suggested.

There are very deep waters here having to do with how
we all think (the heart leads the mind). We may also
have unreasonably high expectations about how rational
we ourselves are. Perhaps the real fear is this:

    Unless vigorously stomped out, certain ideas
    could gain a following.

(Even though surely 95% of the readers wouldn't abide
those ideas.)

For example, what if someone did propose that it would
be better for humanity or better for "us" (whoever that
is) to commit some drastic and extreme action? And
moreover that we "know in our hearts" that this is a
terrible, terrible proposal? Alas, then, we are no better
than the Church Fathers who needed to do the same thing.

But maybe it was arrogant of us to suppose that we ever
were "better"? All these people, Dave, who evidently write
often to the list moderator that this or that thread should
be excised--I think are just as thoughtful and well-meaning
as anyone else.

So, no, something else is going on that I don't quite
understand. (And no, I am *not* talking about the list
owners or moderators---they indeed could have a public
image to maintain or political goals. I understand that.)

Please give them some credit. We may (or I may) simply
have a blind spot here. I've had them before. What is
really going on?

Lee