3 ms·
you are just making a point, but I'll take it seriously for a moment. I think that handles can be provocative, and some are certainly chosen to do psychologica
by jonnycomputer 8y ago
you are just making a point, but I'll take it seriously for a moment.
I think that handles can be provocative, and some are certainly chosen to do psychological harm (e.g. to racial minorities). If I had known you, and known that you would be triggered by this name, and that the harm was substantial, I would have some culpability, especially if I chose it with the intent of triggering you. But I didn't know you, and I didn't know that you would be triggered, and I did not intend to trigger you, and I had no way of knowing it would trigger anyone, nor a reasonable expectation that it would. And so there is really no culpability.
- slededit 8y agoThis gets to the core of our disagreement. I don't believe second order effects (i.e. things that involve another human decision maker using your creation) to be knowable in the general case. The exception being if you specifically advertise it for that purpose or similarity to existing tools makes it obvious. In the case of a scientist - the ultimate effects of their discovery will always be second order as they are not the engineers applying the science.
- jonnycomputer 8y agobut the second order effects of triggering you, such as you being a jerk to someone, is something that I would have at least some culpability for. its ... complicated. but we still have to try to think about what we are doing