4 ms·
> If we "return" to not discussing anything with our peers and just being professional robots, to avoid 'chaos', we'll have lost our last healthy outlet for thi
by MockObject 7y ago
> If we "return" to not discussing anything with our peers and just being professional robots, to avoid 'chaos', we'll have lost our last healthy outlet for this sort of thing.
Absolutely not. It means your healthy outlet will be with your friends, those mututally selected for compatibility, and in contexts where such discussions are presumably welcome.
As opposed to the workplace, with people brought together by happenstance to cooperate productively, despite personal differences that are irrelevant to the production process.
> I attribute this far more towards the current climate of virtue signalling:
In many a historical era, tiny theological or political disputes have set neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother.
In the aftermath, the solution that civilized societies evolved was: don't discuss politics or religion! It worked. Let's restore it.
- core-questions 7y ago> your friends, those mututally selected for compatibility I have those. I'm very conscious, though, that that's not true for everyone, and it's hard to maintain these things later in life as everyone moves around and becomes too busy with their own lives.
- tunesmith 7y agoI wonder if that was one of those solutions that only worked because of the state of technology at the time. We didn't need to legislate certain privacy guarantees because they were simply expected and we didn't anticipate machine learning. Similarly, we could rely on boundaried social contexts since we didn't have the ability to look into each others lives through facebook, nextdoor, etc. So that solution might more have been a stopgap coping mechanism to delay our need to find another better solution, like societally learning to better respect each others differing backgrounds and values.