What people are doing here can look, both to participants and to outsiders, like some form of movement-building or ideology-spreading. There’s a demand both from within and without to name and describe what “we” do, what “we” think, “our” takes on the political and scientific questions of the day, “our” relationships with other people/ideologies/movements/ideas.
The way some people, including me here, respond this demand is by trying to supply an acceptable answer. One that is accurate, bold enough to be interesting, yet cautious enough to avoid provoking unnecessary ire.
An alternative way to respond to this demand is by rejecting it, to say “that question is unhelpful, so please stop asking.”
In that light, some basic principles of the forum might be:
Do not choose speech norms for the forum based on their impact on political movements.
For example, do not make arguments of the form “Movement X is bad. Speech norm Y is Xist, while speech norm Z is anti-X. Therefore, we should reject speech norm Y and use speech norm Z.”
Do not apply rewards and punishments in order to disrupt thinking and enforce conformity. Use them instead to reward cogency and critical thinking. Use scout mindset, not soldier mindset.
Actively resist attempts to tie the forum into a particular movement, ideology, or institution, or frame it as an enemy. This includes attempts to tie it to a movement that champions these principles in the wider world. Keep the forum independent, neutral, and small.
Actively resist attempts to use incentives (voting mechanisms, rhetoric, official site policy) to try and enforce a unified approach to the execution of forum independence and neutrality. Make reasoned arguments, and let people make their own decisions.
That’s an interesting perspective.
What people are doing here can look, both to participants and to outsiders, like some form of movement-building or ideology-spreading. There’s a demand both from within and without to name and describe what “we” do, what “we” think, “our” takes on the political and scientific questions of the day, “our” relationships with other people/ideologies/movements/ideas.
The way some people, including me here, respond this demand is by trying to supply an acceptable answer. One that is accurate, bold enough to be interesting, yet cautious enough to avoid provoking unnecessary ire.
An alternative way to respond to this demand is by rejecting it, to say “that question is unhelpful, so please stop asking.”
In that light, some basic principles of the forum might be:
Do not choose speech norms for the forum based on their impact on political movements.
For example, do not make arguments of the form “Movement X is bad. Speech norm Y is Xist, while speech norm Z is anti-X. Therefore, we should reject speech norm Y and use speech norm Z.”
Do not apply rewards and punishments in order to disrupt thinking and enforce conformity. Use them instead to reward cogency and critical thinking. Use scout mindset, not soldier mindset.
Actively resist attempts to tie the forum into a particular movement, ideology, or institution, or frame it as an enemy. This includes attempts to tie it to a movement that champions these principles in the wider world. Keep the forum independent, neutral, and small.
Actively resist attempts to use incentives (voting mechanisms, rhetoric, official site policy) to try and enforce a unified approach to the execution of forum independence and neutrality. Make reasoned arguments, and let people make their own decisions.