[extropy-chat] Appropriate List Content - meaning of ignorance...

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> --- The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > We're talking, of course, about "crap filters".
> > > 
> > > For this list, part of the crap filter is *ignoring*
> > > prophecies from
> > > sources that have usually been to be too vague to
> > > give useful
> > > predictions, or incorrect if they are not vague.
> > > 
> >  I agree. But the key word here is *ignoring*. If
> > Eugen had just ignored the posts about the vague and
> > useless prophecies, I would not have been so confused
> > and upset.
> 
> Different sense of the term.  "Ignore" as in "they should not be
> discussed here", not as in "don't pay attention to discussions of
> them here".
> 

I'm pretty well versed in the English language, and i don't ever recall
a 'should not' being part of the definition of 'ignore'. Peer pressure,
i.e. consensual ignorance of the unacceptable, is, by definition a
consensual activity, i.e. all must implicitly agree that that which is
ignored should be ignored to maintain group consensus reality, and
solely for the sake of maintaining group consensus reality. If you
haven't got consensus, it isn't going to be ignored to save the group
members from being offended.

> > But ignoring a post is quite different from
> > calling for the poster to be banned.
> 
> True.  Banning should happen if and only if milder forms of
> deterrence
> fail, and if the poster's continued presence detracts from the list's
> value.  For example, if a poster repeatedly brings up things
> irrelevant
> to the list's topic, driving out discussion of things relevant to the
> list's topic (and driving away newcomers who don't yet know what to
> ignore), despite repeated warnings.
> 
> Key concept: it is possible for someone to take value away from an
> email list that is owned by someone else.  #include standard
> arguments
> for allowing limited defense of private property.  In this case,
> banning someone does no (or, at most, negligible) harm to the banned
> person.

Depends. In some cases it might be a marked benefit to them to be
booted. In others, other list members are harmed by a reduction in
exposure to a diversity of ideas.

> 
> > I am not saying that you should not use a
> > "crap filter", I am saying that your "crap filter"
> > should not be forced upon anybody else. To do
> > otherwise is censorship plain and simple.
> 
> We're not "forcing" the filter on anyone, in the same sense that
> we're not "forcing" anyone to be here.  If you want to talk about
> prophecies
> and whatnot, fine: there are other places to do that.  Not here.

Lets see, this list has discussed psychic phenomena as a product of
scientific study before (Damien) and I also recall a controversial
study from years ago in Discover looking at world leaders and the
incidence of their birt on days of eclipses or when
sun/moon/significant planets were on the horizon or directly overhead.
We look at scientific ideas of action-at-a-distance on a regular basis,
and idea futures are regularly discussed (a form of prophesy) and the
Policy Futures Market was created by one of our members.

How is a prophet any different from a futurist who won't explain his reasons?

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com