From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 06:19:38 MDT
Phil Osborn wrote,
> The "salon" model is perhaps the closest to what is
> workable and desirable. One of the things that one
> expects to happen at a salon is that people will be
> outrageous, sometimes to get attention, sometimes to
> force consideration of an issue that gets shoved under
> the table repeatedly. Such people can be laughed at,
> ridiculed, humored, whatever. However, they serve at
> least one useful purpose, regardless of the merits of
> what they present to us: they demonstrate that there
> is in fact an atmosphere of free inquiry. Without
> that, the salon is just another fashion clique, and
> any credibility is purely incidental.
This is an excellent response to my fears. This forum is not a think-tank.
It is more of a salon as you and Anders have correctly pointed out. My
concerns seem misdirected now. This forum is an excellent community
gathering place, which lead me to post my VR-BAR scenario which was a
simulated spoof of myself in this community. I have gotten so many contacts
off-line for security advice, that I am now amazed at how much actually is
going on under the covers.
> Unfortunately, some people on this list are typically
> so worried that someone might post something that
> would be "embarrassing" to extropianism that at many,
> many points in the past this has served to either
> stifle real free discussion, or generated a huge
> amount of heat with little light, with various threats
> - overt or implied - to exclude participants due to
> the emotions their positions evoked. This response
> itself tends to DIScredit any credibility of the list.
This is definitely a concern, and not unique to this list. However, we do
need to figure out a way for participants to discuss even the "difficult
questions" with less heat and more light. I think most of the complaints
about certain topics is due to their lack of signal-to-noise ratio, not that
the topics are disallowed. We also need to figure out how to allow these
discussions to occur without overwhelming other topics. Certain threads
seem to explode into such volume that no other communication is possible.
It becomes a denial-of-service effect where even unrelated conversations
become more difficult.
> The only proper response - assuming that one considers
> the forum to worth preserving - is to demonstrate the
> impotence of such threats by being even more obnoxious
> and outrageous, even if one is disinclined to be so by
> nature. Then, if that does not result in banishment
> or censorship, we can feel reasonably assured that the
> forum is still free.
I don't think we need to be more obnoxious, because many of us have no
trouble in this area. Maybe being more outrageous would be helpful.
However, despite your concerns, I don't think there is really any censorship
or danger that this forum is not free. There are too many freedom-loving
individuals on all points of the political spectrum who would never allow
that to happen.
> I would suggest, therefore, that everyone attending
> this salon of, for and by the future take it upon
> themselves to make at least one truly outrageous post
> every month or so, just as an ongoing test and proof
> to those who might feel that at least a chilling
> effect was present, and an encouragement to those
> people who have genuinely good ideas but who cringe
> from facing the social embarrassment or ostracism, the
> snide remarks, etc. that always emerge from those who
> haven't anything good to add.
Fear of embarrassment is a great inhibitor. Fortunately, I do not fear
embarrassment and tend to embarrass myself often in this forum.
> If the list is supposed to be an advertisement for
> extropianism, with everyone lined up in their suits
> and flowered dresses, scrubbed clean and then
> airbrushed after the fact, then it rather defeats the
> purpose anyway. No real extropian would want to
> participate in that kind of farce.
I believe that this is partially aimed at me. Although it accurately
reflects some of my concerns, it leads to a Stepford-Borg horror that I
never intended. Luckily, nobody listens to me when I have stupid ideas. I
don't see much danger in people on this list bowing too much to peer
pressure. We have Jupiter-sized egos that won't allow that. (Why did
Jupiter-egos evolve faster than Jupiter-brains?)
> If it's about a forum for ideas, a free-for-all for
> the people who are in the business of trying new
> things and exploring new and radically different
> approaches, which it often is, then forget those
> suits. Bring wrenches, crowbars and intellectual
> bulldozers. Dress for the day: flak jackets and
> jeans.
Cool!
> There should be and are specific discussion groups
> that limit membership and control submissions. There
> is nothing wrong with that in a group of experts in a
> field who are pursueing narrowly defined interests
> within a precise protocol.
I am brainstorming ideas on how an expert, think-tank, consensus,
development, work-group online system might function to make communications
and ideas progress more efficiently than an e-mail list allows.
> Extropy, however, is NOT a narrowly defined interest,
> and by its nature is likely to generate an infinite
> variety of chaotic nodes. That doesn't mean that a
> lot of posts frankly stink. It happens, and we should
> point that out. SO WHAT? If someone really annoys
> you, don't read him or her, or, if it pleases you,
> jump all over their case, refute everything,
> demonstrate that they are morons, make them eat their
> words, revel in it.
>
> Just don't kill the salon because someone says
> something you don't like. Grow up.
AGREED! This seems to be a complete and accurate refutation of "my fears"
that I posted. I vote for this as post of the month! (Thanks to everybody
who participated!)
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 06:31:12 MDT