voices of humanity
re: Finding our Common Humanity
sum
Dear Clarita,
The dialog is meant to be self-moderating. There is nothing to stop someone from writing a hateful message, but if they do, then that message will get low marks from many readers and will not make it to the final round of the voting.
I know there are many sensitive people who might be upset to read any ignorant and hateful message, even one that is about to be voted off the island. But on the other hand we have the quis custodiet custodes ipsos problem - if I remember my Latin right - who will watch the guards themselves? Who can guarantee that the moderator won't moderate right out of the discussion some quirky but perhaps useful perspective? So one thing to watch concerning our experimental dialog is whether its self-moderating feature really works to discourage unhelpful disturbing messages.
The same should apply in lesser degree to messages that reflect one or another narrative in a conflict situation. Because those messages tend to be distorted by the conflict, the larger group of readers will give them lower approval ratings. The messages that have the approval of all the groups, including those that are in conflict, are the messages that will rise in the process. The perfect win-win idea may be impossible to find, but a novel notion that points the way out of the dilemma will do very well, and that is what we need in general for the world now, where our nation-state system as it is constituted doesn't seem quite up to the task.
-- Roger
The dialog is meant to be self-moderating. There is nothing to stop someone from writing a hateful message, but if they do, then that message will get low marks from many readers and will not make it to the final round of the voting.
I know there are many sensitive people who might be upset to read any ignorant and hateful message, even one that is about to be voted off the island. But on the other hand we have the quis custodiet custodes ipsos problem - if I remember my Latin right - who will watch the guards themselves? Who can guarantee that the moderator won't moderate right out of the discussion some quirky but perhaps useful perspective? So one thing to watch concerning our experimental dialog is whether its self-moderating feature really works to discourage unhelpful disturbing messages.
The same should apply in lesser degree to messages that reflect one or another narrative in a conflict situation. Because those messages tend to be distorted by the conflict, the larger group of readers will give them lower approval ratings. The messages that have the approval of all the groups, including those that are in conflict, are the messages that will rise in the process. The perfect win-win idea may be impossible to find, but a novel notion that points the way out of the dilemma will do very well, and that is what we need in general for the world now, where our nation-state system as it is constituted doesn't seem quite up to the task.
-- Roger
