4 ms·

Even that formulation still fails. You don't know everyones preference. You can't actually do it. I know what the text of it says. I just think the subtext say

Even that formulation still fails. You don't know everyones preference. You can't actually do it. I know what the text of it says. I just think the subtext says something much different. Or the whole thing is just plain wrong, but in an accidentally useful way.

Consultant32452 8y ago
You know a reasonable approximation of everyone's preference, and with a modicum of empathy and communication you should be able to suss out the areas where it might be unclear.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  That sounds good on a surface level analysis but closer inspection of how political correctness has changed over the last century suggests it's actually not at all as simple as you make it out to be. We're actually crap at pulling it off. If it requires communication then the formulation is actually closer to "treat others how they state they'd like to be treated". We're getting further and further away from the original formulation. Think of it another way... If you were a 19th century man, it's not likely you would have a cordial chat with a woman or a gay man, deploy empathy and come to 21st conclusions on how you should treat them. The change is hard fought and hard won. How we state we want to be treated is a matter of both public and private discourse and it's a long process for enough communication to happen for the baseline of what social norms should be to shift in a noticeable way.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    I agree that if I were a 19th century man I likely would not have treated women or minorites the way they wished to be treated. I don't see how the unlikelihood of me having employed the golden rule invalidates it in any way.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      It's not the unlikelihood of you having employed it. It's the likelihood of you having employed it and that not having the results your 21st century self might assume that it generates. So maybe 2 decades ago people bandied it about like they meant it and then still unironically said things like "I didn't like that movie, it was gay." I'm simply saying the function of the golden rule is different than what you think it is.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        You seem to be suggesting that the golden rule is a flawed premise because people generally suck and fail to live up to it. I don't understand how one implies the other.
        james_s_tayler 8y ago
        It's not possible to live up to it with the golden rule alone. It's the lengthy political and social processes that shift the behavior over time. Then people remind each other of the golden rule as if thats how we got to where we did. The golden rule as a meme certainly has a function. I'm implying that it's the perception of the golden rules function that is flawed.

Consultant32452 8y ago

You know a reasonable approximation of everyone's preference, and with a modicum of empathy and communication you should be able to suss out the areas where it might be unclear.

james_s_tayler 8y ago
That sounds good on a surface level analysis but closer inspection of how political correctness has changed over the last century suggests it's actually not at all as simple as you make it out to be. We're actually crap at pulling it off. If it requires communication then the formulation is actually closer to "treat others how they state they'd like to be treated". We're getting further and further away from the original formulation. Think of it another way... If you were a 19th century man, it's not likely you would have a cordial chat with a woman or a gay man, deploy empathy and come to 21st conclusions on how you should treat them. The change is hard fought and hard won. How we state we want to be treated is a matter of both public and private discourse and it's a long process for enough communication to happen for the baseline of what social norms should be to shift in a noticeable way.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I agree that if I were a 19th century man I likely would not have treated women or minorites the way they wished to be treated. I don't see how the unlikelihood of me having employed the golden rule invalidates it in any way.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    It's not the unlikelihood of you having employed it. It's the likelihood of you having employed it and that not having the results your 21st century self might assume that it generates. So maybe 2 decades ago people bandied it about like they meant it and then still unironically said things like "I didn't like that movie, it was gay." I'm simply saying the function of the golden rule is different than what you think it is.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      You seem to be suggesting that the golden rule is a flawed premise because people generally suck and fail to live up to it. I don't understand how one implies the other.
      - james_s_tayler 8y ago
        It's not possible to live up to it with the golden rule alone. It's the lengthy political and social processes that shift the behavior over time. Then people remind each other of the golden rule as if thats how we got to where we did. The golden rule as a meme certainly has a function. I'm implying that it's the perception of the golden rules function that is flawed.