In other groups with I’m familiar, you would kick out people you think are actually a danger (e.g. you discover the guy is a convicted child molester, and have some intelligence to the effect that they are not a reformed character) or you think they might do something that brings your group into disrepute. (I can think of one example where the counterintelligence investigation of a group member suggested that they were setting up a financial scam and were planning to abscond with people’s money).
But otherwise, I think it’s a sign of being a cult If you kick people for not going along with the group dogma.
I mean… really? I am sure that you have been part of companies, or have gone through some kind of higher education with admission processes, where the standards for admission was definitely not “the other person is a danger”.
I agree you should choose your standards to whatever is appropriate for a specific group, but clearly many groups should have standards that greatly exceed “are they a danger”. LessWrong is definitely one such place!
I’d guess you have a different understanding of what danger is. “has a history of attacking children” and “will have a corrosive effect on morale” are both dangers, just of different things. Companies kick out people that seem to be introducing a danger of being net negative for financial reasons (very widely understood). A church will kick out someone who is a danger of leading others into sin. A well managed forum will ban someone who is a danger of making the experience worse for everyone else.
Nowhere does the OP say anything about kicking people out for not going along with the group dogma. There are multiple groups where that is treated as a real danger, but I don’t think that’s a fair criticism here? Unless you mean by dogma something about open discussion, truth seeking etc., in which case acting against them really is a danger which needs to be removed. A garden without a gardener won’t last long.
In other groups with I’m familiar, you would kick out people you think are actually a danger (e.g. you discover the guy is a convicted child molester, and have some intelligence to the effect that they are not a reformed character) or you think they might do something that brings your group into disrepute. (I can think of one example where the counterintelligence investigation of a group member suggested that they were setting up a financial scam and were planning to abscond with people’s money).
But otherwise, I think it’s a sign of being a cult If you kick people for not going along with the group dogma.
I mean… really? I am sure that you have been part of companies, or have gone through some kind of higher education with admission processes, where the standards for admission was definitely not “the other person is a danger”.
I agree you should choose your standards to whatever is appropriate for a specific group, but clearly many groups should have standards that greatly exceed “are they a danger”. LessWrong is definitely one such place!
I’d guess you have a different understanding of what danger is. “has a history of attacking children” and “will have a corrosive effect on morale” are both dangers, just of different things. Companies kick out people that seem to be introducing a danger of being net negative for financial reasons (very widely understood). A church will kick out someone who is a danger of leading others into sin. A well managed forum will ban someone who is a danger of making the experience worse for everyone else.
Nowhere does the OP say anything about kicking people out for not going along with the group dogma. There are multiple groups where that is treated as a real danger, but I don’t think that’s a fair criticism here? Unless you mean by dogma something about open discussion, truth seeking etc., in which case acting against them really is a danger which needs to be removed. A garden without a gardener won’t last long.