From: Ottley Darron L Contr 388 RANS (Darron.Ottley@HILL.AF.MIL)
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 12:15:43 MDT
It is difficult to follow this thread as who is being offended by what.
Either you are direct and truthful (perhaps offending the more sensetive in
the process of efficient communication) or you are politically correct and
ambiguous (perhaps offending those who desire actual information). Either
is a learned means of communication.
I have spent some time in Hong Kong some years ago. Their means of living
in such a crowded city was difficult for my Western sensebilities to adjust
to. Eventually I did, it was their city after all. Thus, we evolve style
guides and practices aimed at our audience and their levels of tolerance, it
is to this audience that we wish to communicate.
A transhumanist exchange, I would hope, would use practices from Eprime and
seek to become more efficient and succinct. A tolerance level needs to be
determined by those who constitute this list. This thread seems to be
heading there now, but will alter again soon.
So, in the interest of better communication, I propose that ethnic origin
statements (black, african-american, negro, mexican, latino, etc, etc) be
accepted for the intent rather than the possible spin. Let us begin by
assuming no malice. Then, be sure to make a goal of ommitting judgements
(is, are, etc). Ex: It is impossible to run the four minute mile. Correct:
I think it unlikely that humans will run the four minute mile. Please, this
is an example, I am aware of the current world record for the mile.
As always, this is merely an opinion (No malice here!)
Darron
-----Original Message-----
From: k_aegis@mindspring.com [mailto:k_aegis@mindspring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 11:02 AM
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Re: Crocker's Rules (WAS: Women, fire...)
Hal Finney writes:
>The problem is that these rules introduce tremendous friction when
>operating with someone who does not follow them, which is almost the
>entire world. It means that you are constantly giving offense to
>people, which leads to wasted time on your part as you try to correct
>the misunderstanding. <snip other comments>
I'm in agreement with Hal's comments, but could we deepen this a bit to talk
about the underlying basis for this system? When discussing verbal
interactions, particularly in the cyber realm, I start from the basic
assumption that in most cases words operate in an equivalent fashion to
physical actions. As humans move away from physically proximal activities
onto the telephone lines and potentially into uploading and other forms of
AI, symbolic forms of communication take precedence. 'Taking offense' in
this context could constitute a realization that something is awry in the
method of communication, something that may indicate potential hostility or
perhaps an environment that will not be productive for one's purposes.
So, to draw a metaphor, I view certain kinds of speech as a form of weaponry
or intimidation that operates in the same fashion as brandishing a shield,
knife or gun. To simply say to everyone: 'OK, everyone must agree not to
be threatened by the knife in my hand' simply doesn't work unless you have
devised a method by which you can indicate that the knife will in no way be
used in a harmful manner. When someone logs onto a listserve, they are
figuratively entering a room in which various individuals interact, using
words to substitute for body language, actions, and emotions. When all of
the signals, symbols and words that constitute action on the Internet
signify some sort of hostility or condescension, it seems most rational for
the other person to 'take offense' and make some sort of decision based on
that.
Kathryn Aegis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST