3 ms·
Re the US: I only meant that comparatively. Most of the people in the world can only dream of living under a system as good as yours. And for us violent regulat
by entropyneur 6y ago
Re the US: I only meant that comparatively. Most of the people in the world can only dream of living under a system as good as yours. And for us violent regulation of expression is the norm.
I hear you. The shame-based system is prone to be unjust. TBH, I also think the people pioneering it are wrong about most things. I guess what I'm trying to say is that any violent regulation of expression is unjust, so even if shame-justice is on point 10% of the time it's still an improvement. And in the cases when it's wrong the consequences are less severe.
- rbrtl 6y agoI had - without questioning it - assumed you were commenting from a Western Democracy yourself. It is beautifully eye-opening to be confronted with my own bias so starkly. In fact, I am British, and I think our system has many of the same issues as that of the US. Of course we have our own issues, mostly stemming from what I perceive as a delicate sensibility which is pervasive in British society, and is the subject of decades of jokes at our expense. I wrote, and rewrote the rest of this comment 3 times, before I gave up, and started from the top of the thread again. Now I have decided to stop exhausting myself over what might be acceptable to an indefinable demographic (HN commenters reading this individual thread) for me to say.
- antepodius 6y agoBut over here, we're not moving from the government hurting you for your speech to people shaming you. We moving from less hurt/shame in total to more shame in total. If the 2nd amendment didn't exist, the us would also have more government punishments for speech now than it did before- because that's what the people shaming want.
- antepodius 6y agoSorry, actually meant 1st. But 2nd applies, too.