4 ms·

> If you are on the side of revealing this information, you are on the same side as some pretty unpleasant folks. I try to pick my sides based on what seems ri

by philh 9y ago

> If you are on the side of revealing this information, you are on the same side as some pretty unpleasant folks. I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side. (I do not have a side in this particular fight.)

protomyth 9y ago
> I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side. I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. I tend to favor protection of people as a whole.
- philh 9y ago
  > I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. Taken literally, this suggests that you can't work out the consequences without looking at the supporters. If that's what you mean, I have to say it seems weird to me. Taken less literally: if you think the consequences of one side winning include "people get harmed", you can just say that. You can point at the consequences instead of the supporters.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    The people picking sides provides data and case studies for what that side really means. Its nice to think in the abstract about issues, but it is helpful to see the movements of the various actors in a situation to determine if a decision has a net benefit while not violating what I hold dear. The whole ignore the actors on both sides sacrifices getting a benefit from the analysis they did to pick a side. Plus bad actors are quite good at sounding very good in the abstract while showing their true colors in their actions.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    It's just a different value calculus from your own. You mention that you try to make choices based on 'what seems right' but surely you're aware that different people have different conceptions thereof. Violent extremists are typically very sure of their moral premises even though they may be drastically different from the popular norm.

by philh 9y ago

protomyth 9y ago

> I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side. I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. I tend to favor protection of people as a whole.

philh 9y ago
> I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. Taken literally, this suggests that you can't work out the consequences without looking at the supporters. If that's what you mean, I have to say it seems weird to me. Taken less literally: if you think the consequences of one side winning include "people get harmed", you can just say that. You can point at the consequences instead of the supporters.
- protomyth 9y ago
  The people picking sides provides data and case studies for what that side really means. Its nice to think in the abstract about issues, but it is helpful to see the movements of the various actors in a situation to determine if a decision has a net benefit while not violating what I hold dear. The whole ignore the actors on both sides sacrifices getting a benefit from the analysis they did to pick a side. Plus bad actors are quite good at sounding very good in the abstract while showing their true colors in their actions.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  It's just a different value calculus from your own. You mention that you try to make choices based on 'what seems right' but surely you're aware that different people have different conceptions thereof. Violent extremists are typically very sure of their moral premises even though they may be drastically different from the popular norm.