"Erik Moeller" wrote
On 5/16/06, charles matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
But I wouldn't prefer this.
'Divisive' is clearer than 'ideological': I
have just been reading an academic text where it is stated that
"ideology"
has at least 100 meanings. Divisive writing can be recognised by its
intention, to split and polarise.
It is very difficult to know intentions. A policy which operates on
guessing intentions, rather than determining clear facts, is a
dangerous thing.
Well, OK. It is not _always_ very difficult to guess intentions (hate
speech and so on). It is better to have a policy that is sometimes useful,
and relates very clearly to what everyone agrees. We all agree that driving
wedges into the community, along factional lines, is very bad. So we state
this as policy. I would see that as the 80 for 20 of the situation: we can
apply this to some rather stupid or trolling or overtly partisan situations.
Then manifestos have at least to pay due respect to the principle that the
community is not to be polarised.
Charles