Acronyms

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 4:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Acronyms

Can you all be careful about the use of acronyms? You're not as bad as my daughter whose emails are full of BRB, IDK, WYD, etc. Unless you're sure that it's universally known why not put its meaning in parentheses the first time you use it in an email and then use it freely after that.

Thanks,

Frank

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I'm not sure who you are accusing of what, and it doesn't matter. Fwiw, I suppose I follow a few underlying principles by default, unless I am being paid or whatnot:

1) If someone is motivated to make a point or understand some topic, as there was some indication in some cases, then if some muttering is alien to them, they'll bother to puzzle it out or ask without being petulant about it.

2) The burden is not on the speaker/sharer unless the speaker especially cares that the topic be understood and perhaps acted upon. Say, if the speaker is engaging in political advocacy, or defending some claim where they have some skin in the game.

3) Electrons are cheap to move around and attention can be modulated.

Marcus

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:03 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

Well, generally that is the paradox. But the narcissism I am talking about is INTRA group narcissism -- writing a post that one knows damn well only 2 members of the group will understand. We are a sufficiently broad group that I imagine that if we developed a language understood by most of us, it would also be understood by a lot of other people.

But there is value to narcissism that might be lost if we tried to standardize. That you all understand me is an illusion that helps me to write, and when I write, thoughts happen that I did not plan on happening. Even if NONE of you understood, that would be a gain for me. I think many of us write to the list in this delusional way, and I can't claim that that's altogether a Bad Thing.

Nick

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:46 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

IDK, man. This contribution rings a bit hollow. Jargon, insider jokes and words, etc. all serve group cohesion. Coming from Nick, who sporadically talks of FriAM as important *as a group*, including attempts to formulate some threads as coherent presentable things, it seems good, generalized/popularized, communication is antithetic.

But it *does* bode well for treating forum posts as public essays rather than intra-group chatting ... which I've argued is the case. A flaw in my argument, that those who disagree with me have yet to point out, is that despite being publicly available on Nabble, it's not really a public forum. It's not widely read. We *do* use obComplexity jargon just to titillate each other. Etc. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to viewing these posts as public essays is that we don't have a standard set of rules (like Frank's) posts are expected to follow.

So, the classical mathetists among us will argue that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either we're a group of insiders, a tribe, or this is a publication medium which should have some associated rules. Perhaps that's the paradox Nick's after?

On 1/26/21 10:19 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> This correspondence has been an example of it self. Narcissism is the
> enemy of communication.
>
> I suppose there is SOME sense in putting obscurities in email blasts to the list and clasping to your bosom anybody who happens to understand you. (I did that with my recent supervenience post and got one answer that was tremendously helpful) It’s like hitchhiking, then; you only need one ride. But while it makes some sense, as a general strategy of communication, isn’t it a bit pathetic, after all? Isn’t there some paradox in communication that is designed to be exclusive?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Jon,

On the whole I agree. But I can't help wondering if we would be a lot
smarter if we heard from more of them.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 1:18 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I am not sure that it is all that helpful to point out, but I will point out
that we don't come at all close to even hearing from the majority of us let
alone knowing what the majority of us thinks or is familiar with.
Contributions on this forum likely follow some kind of Pareto distribution.
What sense would it make to target either an imagined mean or the
contributing one-percenters? I cannot help but feel that one ought to be
free to write what it is that compels them and to leave the analysis to the
critics.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Right, Marcus. That's where I ended up, too. While I need to IMAGINE that you can understand me, in order to write some of what I write, the fact that you don't, in the short run, doesn't matter. The illusion of you attentively listening has broken many a writer's block. I would hate it if some Good Government A-hole like me would start dictating what could our not appear on FRIAM.

You are in the unenviable position of agreeing with me. (};-\)

However, I do wonder what some of those people would say if we were better at engaging them.

Nick

Nick Thompson

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 4:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I'm not sure who you are accusing of what, and it doesn't matter. Fwiw, I suppose I follow a few underlying principles by default, unless I am being paid or whatnot:

1) If someone is motivated to make a point or understand some topic, as there was some indication in some cases, then if some muttering is alien to them, they'll bother to puzzle it out or ask without being petulant about it.

2) The burden is not on the speaker/sharer unless the speaker especially cares that the topic be understood and perhaps acted upon. Say, if the speaker is engaging in political advocacy, or defending some claim where they have some skin in the game.

3) Electrons are cheap to move around and attention can be modulated.

Marcus

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:03 AM

To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

Well, generally that is the paradox. But the narcissism I am talking about is INTRA group narcissism -- writing a post that one knows damn well only 2 members of the group will understand. We are a sufficiently broad group that I imagine that if we developed a language understood by most of us, it would also be understood by a lot of other people.

But there is value to narcissism that might be lost if we tried to standardize. That you all understand me is an illusion that helps me to write, and when I write, thoughts happen that I did not plan on happening. Even if NONE of you understood, that would be a gain for me. I think many of us write to the list in this delusional way, and I can't claim that that's altogether a Bad Thing.

Nick

Nick Thompson

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 12:46 PM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

IDK, man. This contribution rings a bit hollow. Jargon, insider jokes and words, etc. all serve group cohesion. Coming from Nick, who sporadically talks of FriAM as important *as a group*, including attempts to formulate some threads as coherent presentable things, it seems good, generalized/popularized, communication is antithetic.

But it *does* bode well for treating forum posts as public essays rather than intra-group chatting ... which I've argued is the case. A flaw in my argument, that those who disagree with me have yet to point out, is that despite being publicly available on Nabble, it's not really a public forum. It's not widely read. We *do* use obComplexity jargon just to titillate each other. Etc. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to viewing these posts as public essays is that we don't have a standard set of rules (like Frank's) posts are expected to follow.

So, the classical mathetists among us will argue that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either we're a group of insiders, a tribe, or this is a publication medium which should have some associated rules. Perhaps that's the paradox Nick's after?

On 1/26/21 10:19 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> This correspondence has been an example of it self. Narcissism is the

> enemy of communication.

> I suppose there is SOME sense in putting obscurities in email blasts to the list and clasping to your bosom anybody who happens to understand you. (I did that with my recent supervenience post and got one answer that was tremendously helpful) It’s like hitchhiking, then; you only need one ride. But while it makes some sense, as a general strategy of communication, isn’t it a bit pathetic, after all? Isn’t there some paradox in communication that is designed to be exclusive?

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

> Jon,
>
> On the whole I agree. But I can't help wondering if we would be a lot
> smarter if we heard from more of them.
>
> n

I have always felt (mildly) impoverished by the participation to
subscription ratio here. It is very hard for me to believe that the
fairly small (by percentage) cohort of regular contributors is so
wyckedly smart and has "the pulse" so well that the remainder (>90%) of
the lurking subset is truly just an "audience" for our random
bloviations.   I even *sometimes* want to try to understand whether if I
did a solid STFU, if that might actually leave room for 1 or more
lurkers to pitch in? Probably not on the first round or two (what is
the FriAM cycle... minutes, hours, days, variable?) but over time my
withdrawal or absence might leave room for someone else?   I think there
is a term for this in model/sensitivity analysis, but it eludes me right
now.... essentially *removing* an assumed dominate variable/signal to
see how everything else correlates in it's absence?

Maybe this bent thread might inspire a few lurkers to weigh in?

I appreciate Jon's reference to a Pareto distribution frontier to
describe the envelope to the "ragged edge" of insider/exclusive vs
outsider/inclusive terminology.

I personally enjoy what feels more to me like listening in on a
semi-private conversation held pairwise or a small group where the
jargon is specific enough to make me an outsider but the general tenor
or subject draws me in.   I understand that *some* might want every
little subgroup in a cocktail party to "just stop talking" if A) they
don't know what they are talking about, or B) they they think they know
and don't want to be left out, but are in another conversation and/or
don't have the reserved lexicon mastered, and want more explication.

Carry On!

- Steve

>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 1:18 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms
>
> I am not sure that it is all that helpful to point out, but I will point out
> that we don't come at all close to even hearing from the majority of us let
> alone knowing what the majority of us thinks or is familiar with.
> Contributions on this forum likely follow some kind of Pareto distribution.
> What sense would it make to target either an imagined mean or the
> contributing one-percenters? I cannot help but feel that one ought to be
> free to write what it is that compels them and to leave the analysis to the
> critics.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Acronyms

Wow. I was just suggesting that people write, "They gave me the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) when I applied for a job at the CIA." Or "I looked in the DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Version 5) to see whether I agreed that Trump is a sociopath."

I hope the broader discussion has been constructive for the group.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:44 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

Oh, No Frank. Don’t try to weasel out of your responsibility. This is All …. Your ….. Fault!

Please see my next post!

Nick

Nick Thompson

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 7:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I hope the broader discussion has been constructive for the group.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:44 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Prof David West

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick,

"I would hate it if some Good Government A-hole like me would start dictating what could our not appear on FRIAM."

A "government A-hole" is already there, albeit indirectly. All kinds of laws against myriad different types of post. Plus, via tech puppets, vast swaths of 'speech' / 'postings' are prohibited from appearing, even in "private" fora such as FRIAM. And when rule 230 is essentially eliminated, it will get much worse. Not to mention the excess prohibition of any type of "hurtful" speech that will be coming in the months ahead — all prompted by government A-holes legislating.

But the biggest inhibition on what can or cannot appear on FRIAM arises from the majority culture and the self-censorship of those sensitive to it.

davew

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, at 5:40 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

David Eric Smith

Re: Acronyms

An even bigger inhibition comes if how you are doing matters to me, and I would rather contribute to helping that than to dragging it down.

David Eric Smith

Re: Acronyms

I should have added, in the previous post, that the odd thing is that I know from the earlier exchanges that you already know this, and take some pride in following it.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Acronyms

Ok, I’ll take the other side. There’s a way to say almost anything with indirection. Some degree of censorship selects for people who can do that. (Not that I agree that this kind of legislation is really like to occur.)

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 7:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I should have added, in the previous post, that the odd thing is that I know from the earlier exchanges that you already know this, and take some pride in following it.

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Hi, Eric,

Can you say a bit more? I didn’t follow. If it’s obvious, somebody could just take pity on me and write me off line.

Nick Thompson

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I should have added, in the previous post, that the odd thing is that I know from the earlier exchanges that you already know this, and take some pride in following it.

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Marcus,

The position you take seems to be radical individualism, i.e., that there is a me that exists and can be revealed by stripping away the constraints of any social contact. The contrasting view is that “me” is inevitably social, and that it is revealed only by social interaction. So the stable me, the naked me, is actually a fiction, or at most, a statistical average.

Nick Thompson

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:45 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I should have added, in the previous post, that the odd thing is that I know from the earlier exchanges that you already know this, and take some pride in following it.

David Eric Smith

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Hi Nick,

There’s a certain libertarian rhetorical flourish that (to my ear) takes the form of defiantly asserting that nobody should expect you to give a damn about anybody else. But often people to whom indulging in that flourish is important are people who are quite concerned about right action, even at the same time as THEY REALLY DON’T LIKE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO.

Okay, so the world’s complicated.

A society with no ethos that I am sometimes my brother’s keeper degrades — I believe — eventually to an arena of sociopaths. Mostly even in our worst conditions we are not that. There have been some examples in history that start to approximate it, and by comparison we can see that we are not near there yet.

So why dissemble? Dissembling is another vanity, which gets in the way of trying for clarity. To do it for art, for entertainment, for the joy of expression, all good; we want life to have ample space for all those. But if clarity is an objective, to say that, yes, I was born human, and you are human, and that saddles me with certain not only options, but responsibilities of inhibition to care for your wellbeing, gives a report of what you can expect from me. Expectations are important in the domain of non-cooperative (in the technical, game-theoretic sense) domain of actions.

So, only that I find the importance of that style odd.

Eric

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

I guess I can see why you’d say that. However, I’d argue there is still social behavior, even honesty and trust, in a world where information is exchanged in a very cautious way. In the world that I guess Dave is afraid of, people that mouth off too have bad outcomes. Maybe that policing is not so bad?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:10 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

Marcus,

Nick Thompson

I should have added, in the previous post, that the odd thing is that I know from the earlier exchanges that you already know this, and take some pride in following it.

gepr

Re: Acronyms

The particular thing Dave cited <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230> follows nicely with our discussion of forcing a *format* for posts. If it's eliminated or changed such that the hosts of redfish.com become responsible for the posts, then that changes the game quite a bit.

From my interpretation of EricS' part, it's not a bad thing to rely on implicit structure in judging content. So removing 230 would make redfish.com more like a traditional medium that has to take some responsibility for posts. And even strict moderation can be justified, if only based on principles of kindness and people as ends in themselves.

From my interpretation of Dave's part, if only deeply resourced agents can *afford* to publish controversial things, then that feeds the oligarchy and risks all the authoritarian circumstances we're afraid of. Even with 230, there are libel laws, revenge porn laws, hate speech laws, etc. that restrict what we can post. But without 230, it would be fairly easy for someone who doesn't like one of us oft-posting blowhards to get redfish.com shut down.

I'm not at all concerned with what happens to the individual sh¡tposter. I *am* concerned what happens to the infrastructure on which the sh¡tposter posts. It's an important debate crossing lots of domains and with both practical and ideal issues. It's fine if we don't want to have the debate. But it's myopic to cartoon it away.

On 1/27/21 10:57 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> I guess I can see why you’d say that. However, I’d argue there is still social behavior, even honesty and trust, in a world where information is exchanged in a very cautious way. In the world that I guess Dave is afraid of, people that mouth off too have bad outcomes. Maybe that policing is not so bad?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of *[hidden email]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:10 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms
>
>
>
> Marcus,
>
>
>
> The position you take seems to be radical individualism, i.e., that there is a me that exists and can be revealed by stripping away the constraints of any social contact. The contrasting view is that “me” is inevitably social, and that it is revealed only by social interaction. So the stable me, the naked me, is actually a fiction, or at most, a statistical average.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

. Marcus wrote:

In the world that I guess Dave is afraid of, people that mouth off too have bad outcomes. Maybe that policing is not so bad?

It depends upon our purposes. Every once in a while I think we should put our heads above the ramparts and ask if we are paying to great a price for it. But given the results of my little experiment, I would say no. We are who we are and let’s just go on being the best us we can be.

Nick Thompson

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:58 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

I guess I can see why you’d say that. However, I’d argue there is still social behavior, even honesty and trust, in a world where information is exchanged in a very cautious way

Marcus,

Nick Thompson

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shitposter

I should have added, in the previous post, that the odd thing is that I know from the earlier exchanges that you already know this, and take some pride in following it.

gepr

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by gepr

For Frank, because I realized later that I used some specialized jargon:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shitposter

On January 27, 2021 11:22:28 AM PST, "uǝlƃ ↙↙↙" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>I'm not at all concerned with what happens to the individual
>sh¡tposter. I *am* concerned what happens to the infrastructure on
>which the sh¡tposter posts. It's an important debate crossing lots of
>domains and with both practical and ideal issues. It's fine if we don't
>want to have the debate. But it's myopic to cartoon it away.
>
--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by gepr

One can navigate some moderation by structuring arguments in pieces, leaving it to the reader to fill in some dots. In crude form, we saw that with Trump and the riots. (I recall you argued he wouldn't be convicted in a court of law.)
One can call this self-censorship, but it is also self-control. The kind of self-control that rioters lacked is a good thing to incentivize; it is useful to let those without self-control get nabbed; they are plainly dangerous.

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:22 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

The particular thing Dave cited <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230> follows nicely with our discussion of forcing a *format* for posts. If it's eliminated or changed such that the hosts of redfish.com become responsible for the posts, then that changes the game quite a bit.

From my interpretation of EricS' part, it's not a bad thing to rely on implicit structure in judging content. So removing 230 would make redfish.com more like a traditional medium that has to take some responsibility for posts. And even strict moderation can be justified, if only based on principles of kindness and people as ends in themselves.

From my interpretation of Dave's part, if only deeply resourced agents can *afford* to publish controversial things, then that feeds the oligarchy and risks all the authoritarian circumstances we're afraid of. Even with 230, there are libel laws, revenge porn laws, hate speech laws, etc. that restrict what we can post. But without 230, it would be fairly easy for someone who doesn't like one of us oft-posting blowhards to get redfish.com shut down.

I'm not at all concerned with what happens to the individual sh¡tposter. I *am* concerned what happens to the infrastructure on which the sh¡tposter posts. It's an important debate crossing lots of domains and with both practical and ideal issues. It's fine if we don't want to have the debate. But it's myopic to cartoon it away.

On 1/27/21 10:57 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> I guess I can see why you’d say that. However, I’d argue there is
> still social behavior, even honesty and trust, in a world where information is exchanged in a very cautious way. In the world that I guess Dave is afraid of, people that mouth off too have bad outcomes. Maybe that policing is not so bad?
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <[hidden email]> *On Behalf Of
> *[hidden email]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:10 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> <[hidden email]>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms
>
>
>
> Marcus,
>
>
>
> The position you take seems to be radical individualism, i.e., that
> there is a me that exists and can be revealed by stripping away the constraints of any social contact. The contrasting view is that “me” is inevitably social, and that it is revealed only by social interaction. So the stable me, the naked me, is actually a fiction, or at most, a statistical average.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Acronyms

In reply to this post by gepr

ROTFL

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ? glen
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:18 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acronyms

For Frank, because I realized later that I used some specialized jargon:

On January 27, 2021 11:22:28 AM PST, "uǝlƃ ↙↙↙" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I'm not at all concerned with what happens to the individual

>sh¡tposter. I *am* concerned what happens to the infrastructure on

>which the sh¡tposter posts. It's an important debate crossing lots of

>domains and with both practical and ideal issues. It's fine if we don't

>want to have the debate. But it's myopic to cartoon it away.

glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com