> So there's a spectrum, and somewhere along that spectrum there's a threshold where we flip from it being reasonable for a group to ostracise somebody based on their behaviour outside that group to the consequences of said ostracism being so severe that it should only be possible based on a meaningful legal process.
as if it were a unidimensional spectrum. It most definitely isn't.
Even if it were, why would "spectrum" imply that there must be a single threshold, where everybody "flips"?
Even if it were, what makes you believe that everybody who hasn't "flipped" yet is going to find an universal "decision making process" agreeable?
(And even if all of these things were true, which they obviously aren't, what makes you believe that that mythical "consistent" view should be focused on "disciplining," rather than minimizing friction and damage?)
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
> So there's a spectrum, and somewhere along that spectrum there's a threshold where we flip from it being reasonable for a group to ostracise somebody based on their behaviour outside that group to the consequences of said ostracism being so severe that it should only be possible based on a meaningful legal process.
as if it were a unidimensional spectrum. It most definitely isn't.
Even if it were, why would "spectrum" imply that there must be a single threshold, where everybody "flips"?
Even if it were, what makes you believe that everybody who hasn't "flipped" yet is going to find an universal "decision making process" agreeable?
(And even if all of these things were true, which they obviously aren't, what makes you believe that that mythical "consistent" view should be focused on "disciplining," rather than minimizing friction and damage?)
P.-S. — Case in point:
https://twitter.com/Ruby/status/943963403806302208
Again: "appropriate"… according to whom?