“experts” who were supposed to screen newcomers for those who wouldn’t follow the rules of civilized life
?
why that particular criterion?
I don’t see a particular criterion in Viliam’s comment; I see a couple of examples of things that we might want not to tolerate.
aren’t you throwing out another western value, free speech, with it?
Doesn’t look like it to me. Viliam says: if you talk positively about X and Y, you will be called evil. That’s not at all the same as saying you’re forbidden to talk positively about X and Y. The bargain of free speech has always been this: you’re allowed to say “yay for Hitler” or “yay for Stalin” or whatever, and everyone else who hears this is allowed to say “you’re an idiot or an asshole”.
Yes, there should be a gap between “what is legal” and “what is socially approved”, and promoting uncivilized ways of life should be in that gap. Enough free speech to allow it, enough common sense to disapprove of it socialy.
Some people will always enjoy walking exactly on the line; making the legal line same as the socially approved line makes things worse. If they are separated, then if someone walks exactly on the legal line, flip a coin, and either put them to a jail or not, but no one is going to complain about the jail if that happens to be the outcome. And if someone walks exactly on the decency line, flip a coin, and either stop inviting them for a dinner or don’t, but either way the law is not involved. It’s just when the two lines happen to be the same, you have to flip two coins at the same time, and sometimes put someone into a jail for a behavior that is perceived as okay.
Yes, there should be a gap between “what is legal” and “what is socially approved”, and promoting uncivilized ways of life should be in that gap.
The problem is that “socially approved” is a function of the society and there are a lot of those. “Socially approved” in Black Rock City means something very different from “socially approved” in Salt Lake City.
I guess the mass media used to synchronize the society at least approximately (what behavior is portrayed as “socially approved” in the soap operas), but that mechanism may be dead these days.
Interesting. This implies that there is/was a historically short period of time when mass media was able to sync up most everyone. Before that time societies were stratified (e.g. by classes, see feudalism, each with quite different “socially approved” standards) and after that time societies are re-fragmenting into small pieces/bubbles.
Were there ever really
?
I don’t see a particular criterion in Viliam’s comment; I see a couple of examples of things that we might want not to tolerate.
Doesn’t look like it to me. Viliam says: if you talk positively about X and Y, you will be called evil. That’s not at all the same as saying you’re forbidden to talk positively about X and Y. The bargain of free speech has always been this: you’re allowed to say “yay for Hitler” or “yay for Stalin” or whatever, and everyone else who hears this is allowed to say “you’re an idiot or an asshole”.
Yes, there should be a gap between “what is legal” and “what is socially approved”, and promoting uncivilized ways of life should be in that gap. Enough free speech to allow it, enough common sense to disapprove of it socialy.
Some people will always enjoy walking exactly on the line; making the legal line same as the socially approved line makes things worse. If they are separated, then if someone walks exactly on the legal line, flip a coin, and either put them to a jail or not, but no one is going to complain about the jail if that happens to be the outcome. And if someone walks exactly on the decency line, flip a coin, and either stop inviting them for a dinner or don’t, but either way the law is not involved. It’s just when the two lines happen to be the same, you have to flip two coins at the same time, and sometimes put someone into a jail for a behavior that is perceived as okay.
The problem is that “socially approved” is a function of the society and there are a lot of those. “Socially approved” in Black Rock City means something very different from “socially approved” in Salt Lake City.
I guess the mass media used to synchronize the society at least approximately (what behavior is portrayed as “socially approved” in the soap operas), but that mechanism may be dead these days.
Interesting. This implies that there is/was a historically short period of time when mass media was able to sync up most everyone. Before that time societies were stratified (e.g. by classes, see feudalism, each with quite different “socially approved” standards) and after that time societies are re-fragmenting into small pieces/bubbles.
The ultimate Schelling point of human culture—Hollywood.
A temporary Schelling point.
The ultimates, being biologically hardwired, tend to stay the same: food, warmth, sex, company.