> >I am disappointed that a organization like ExI, which ostensibly values
> >rational thought, has chosen to follow a zero-intelligence policy on
> >anything. Human beings have marvellous minds that to date no machinery
> >has been able to duplicate (despite our best efforts). Why are so many
> >authorities afraid to use them? Zero-tolerance policies substitute
> >blind automatic rules for what should be the exercise of human judgment.
>
> The problem though, Lee, is that human judgment is prone to bias.
Of course it is; that's what makes it judgment. And that's exactly
what we're doing here: making the judgment about what is valuable to
us and what isn't.
> If the list rules were to reflect that ad hominem is essentially not
> good, but the list admin(s) will choose whether or not the offender
> should be banned, there are the ramifications of subjective bias.
Absolutely, but that's still 100 times better than leaving human
judgment out of the loop entirely. That's what makes people do silly
things like expelling a boy scout with a hatchet in the trunk of his
car for "carrying a weapon".
> It has been decided by ExI's executives that ad hominem has no place
> on the extropians list.
Good for them; I agree.
> That goes for everyone from folks like Anders to the newest
> newbie.
As it should,
> Personally, I can't envision any practical reason for an ad hominem
> exchange, and unless someone can make a really good case for when and
> how ad hominem is productive, the rule should remain.
Again, I agree. But it is the height of folly to suggest that we have
cleear definitions here, or that it is impossible for de jure application
of the rules to result in detriment to the list. What about sarcasm or
other humor between off-list friends? What about perfectly legitimate
discussions about the values, character, and actions of human beings that
happen to include examples?
All I'm saying is that (1) taking away judgment won't remove bias
anyway; (2) blind application of rules often results in injustice
worse than what the rules were meant to prevent; and (3) it is the
personal responsibility of those in authority to exercise judgment,
and take the heat for their bias if necessary.
> As it says in the List Rules, we most certainly *don't* like rules for
> their own sake. But for the sake of list quality, a few guidelines are
> obviously necessary.
Guidelines are good. "Zero-tolerance" is bad. Always. It is something
we, as Extropians, should fight--and we can't fight it and practice it.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT