3 ms·
The danger here is this distinction between the wise protectors of "easily influenced people" and the dumb asses that need protection. Who decides who is who? I
by zarkov99 8y ago
The danger here is this distinction between the wise protectors of "easily influenced people" and the dumb asses that need protection. Who decides who is who? I do not think this is always clear cut. People who seek the role of censor are almost always the wrong people to be entrusted with that power. And historically we have many examples of ideas that were thought to be ridiculous, dangerous, etc, that turned to be valuable, even accepted. Maybe its best to leave the nastiness in the sun, just mark it as such.
- Veen 8y agoNothing is ever clear cut, but a lack of perfect knowledge and the possibility of unintended consequences are poor reasons to refrain from acting when the consequences of not acting are dire.
- zarkov99 8y agoOn the contrary, those are perfectly good reasons to refrain from acting.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago> Nothing is ever clear cut, but a lack of perfect knowledge and the possibility of unintended consequences are poor reasons to refrain from acting when the consequences of not acting are dire. Sounds like a thinly veiled version of the Politician's Syllogism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism