Note that compulsion requires you to have governmental (or quasi-governmental) power and exclusion (“fences”) requires a certain degree of autonomy and, basically, property rights.
However the question as asked is too high-level. Moral systems’ responses critically depend on how acceptable the other moral belief is. Minor things are usually tolerated and major things are subject to compulsion or exclusion (given sufficient power). For example the US government doesn’t care about the Mormons’ conversion of deceased (indifference) but does care about polygamy (compulsion).
Note that compulsion requires you to have governmental (or quasi-governmental) power and exclusion (“fences”) requires a certain degree of autonomy and, basically, property rights.
Specialized vocabulary and language in general can work well as a fence without needing property rights. Our community is perceived to do this via using terms not used outside of LW.
The Esperanto community does this and Esperanto speakers are more likely to do favors for fellow Esperanto speakers than for other stangers.
Specialized vocabulary and language in general can work well as a fence without needing property rights.
They certainly can help with exclusion, but they are not very useful for including people with specific morals and excluding people with different morals.
Language creates a barrier to entry. Willingness to learn the language then filters for certain values. To the extend that you can control the teaching of the language you can also add additional filters.
It’s true that there are free resources, but for example you can’t take the Duolingo course without also getting at least a bit indoctrinated with veganism.
That factor likely isn’t strong enough to turn someone by itself into a vegan but having many of such prompts does nudge the community in a certain direction and people who are really opposed to it won’t have as much fun learning the language through those resources.
Another one is (non-compulsive) persuasion.
Note that compulsion requires you to have governmental (or quasi-governmental) power and exclusion (“fences”) requires a certain degree of autonomy and, basically, property rights.
However the question as asked is too high-level. Moral systems’ responses critically depend on how acceptable the other moral belief is. Minor things are usually tolerated and major things are subject to compulsion or exclusion (given sufficient power). For example the US government doesn’t care about the Mormons’ conversion of deceased (indifference) but does care about polygamy (compulsion).
Specialized vocabulary and language in general can work well as a fence without needing property rights. Our community is perceived to do this via using terms not used outside of LW.
The Esperanto community does this and Esperanto speakers are more likely to do favors for fellow Esperanto speakers than for other stangers.
They certainly can help with exclusion, but they are not very useful for including people with specific morals and excluding people with different morals.
Language creates a barrier to entry. Willingness to learn the language then filters for certain values. To the extend that you can control the teaching of the language you can also add additional filters.
There are free online resources for Esperanto such as http://lernu.net/ or http://purl.org/net/voko/revo/ so now it can spread beyond control mwahahaha...
It’s true that there are free resources, but for example you can’t take the Duolingo course without also getting at least a bit indoctrinated with veganism.
That factor likely isn’t strong enough to turn someone by itself into a vegan but having many of such prompts does nudge the community in a certain direction and people who are really opposed to it won’t have as much fun learning the language through those resources.