4 ms·

> if I don’t understand what is or isn’t hurtful, then I’ll defer to the leading intellectuals in my culture to tell me This essay was so promising, and then t

> if I don’t understand what is or isn’t hurtful, then I’ll defer to the leading intellectuals in my culture to tell me This essay was so promising, and then turned out to be a pledge of allegiance to the thought police.

coldtea 9y ago
Yeah, god forbid a person thinks for themselves instead of referring to some cultural intellectuals for judgement. What kind of arguments are these? How to be more compliant? What happened to all those enlightenment ideals of being LESS compliant, judging for yourself, etc? And when did "hurtful" (as in feelings) became some huge consideration in public discourse?
Frondo 9y ago
I think you missed the point of that one. He doesn't want to hurt other people, but realizes he won't know all the ways he could do so accidentally. So, in the interest of not hurting people, if he is unsure whether something will or not, he'll defer to smarter people about what's appropriate behavior. If you don't care whether what you say hurts others, you need do nothing, need defer to no one any time, ever.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  What he's really doing is letting himself get censored by hecklers.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    No. If you don't care about hurting other people, do whatever you want. If you do care about hurting other people, do your best but recognize the limits of your knowledge--and where your knowledge is insufficient, defer to other, smarter people. But again, if you don't care about hurting others, do what you want. You don't have to share his goals in life. You can have your own. It's simple, and it's not censorship.
- jdoliner 9y ago
  What if you're deferring to smarter people who want to hurt others though? Quite the conundrum.
  - pas 9y ago
    Well, if you were a common Hans in 1930 Germany, you might have listened to smarter folks, and they wanted to hurt Jews a lot, take their stuff and beat them for their greed (or whatever). Are they really smarter? If you think yes, then what can we do, you'll happily join them, and probably won't be swayed by even smarter people's arguments. If on the other hand those allegedly smarter people advocate against the spread of nationalism by recommending that you maybe don't employ or get employed by nationalists, that might be a bit different, yet maybe totally counterproductive.

coldtea 9y ago

Yeah, god forbid a person thinks for themselves instead of referring to some cultural intellectuals for judgement. What kind of arguments are these? How to be more compliant? What happened to all those enlightenment ideals of being LESS compliant, judging for yourself, etc? And when did "hurtful" (as in feelings) became some huge consideration in public discourse?

Frondo 9y ago

I think you missed the point of that one. He doesn't want to hurt other people, but realizes he won't know all the ways he could do so accidentally. So, in the interest of not hurting people, if he is unsure whether something will or not, he'll defer to smarter people about what's appropriate behavior. If you don't care whether what you say hurts others, you need do nothing, need defer to no one any time, ever.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
What he's really doing is letting himself get censored by hecklers.
- Frondo 9y ago
  No. If you don't care about hurting other people, do whatever you want. If you do care about hurting other people, do your best but recognize the limits of your knowledge--and where your knowledge is insufficient, defer to other, smarter people. But again, if you don't care about hurting others, do what you want. You don't have to share his goals in life. You can have your own. It's simple, and it's not censorship.
jdoliner 9y ago
What if you're deferring to smarter people who want to hurt others though? Quite the conundrum.
- pas 9y ago
  Well, if you were a common Hans in 1930 Germany, you might have listened to smarter folks, and they wanted to hurt Jews a lot, take their stuff and beat them for their greed (or whatever). Are they really smarter? If you think yes, then what can we do, you'll happily join them, and probably won't be swayed by even smarter people's arguments. If on the other hand those allegedly smarter people advocate against the spread of nationalism by recommending that you maybe don't employ or get employed by nationalists, that might be a bit different, yet maybe totally counterproductive.