4 ms·
I think I used to feel the same way, but over time came to understand that a problem which arises is missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete inf
by warent 6y ago
I think I used to feel the same way, but over time came to understand that a problem which arises is missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information.
If you're sharing a sensitive piece of information about yourself with someone who already knows you well, then they have the benefit of all the prior context of knowing who you are, plus they can ask questions for clarification if needed.
Contrast this with sharing sensitive information about yourself on the web. Even if there are numerous other articles that you have published to provide context, someone who doesn't know you can easily take that single piece of sensitive information and completely misunderstand it, because frankly it's impossible to get to know everyone intimately enough to have all the supporting information.
You propose that this openness might help push society toward accepting that humans are flawed and have done things which are not socially acceptable. The problem is that behavior which is not socially acceptable can easily be interpreted as dysfunctional or outright anti-social without knowing who you are. Another example, let's say you have made a mistake in the past (as all humans have) and genuinely feel remorseful and apologetic. The remorse and apology cannot be known to be genuine except by yourself and the people closest to you.
That's why I feel it is actually vital to only share sensitive information with people who have enough context and information to properly understand and integrate it.
- colechristensen 6y agoThe basic problem is exactly "missing context and drawing conclusions from incomplete information" and that every person could fall victim to that sort of attack and misunderstanding. You can try to defend against it by hiding from it, or you can try to defend against it by overwhelming it to show that everybody is "guilty" of one thing or another. It is entirely reasonable to have good justifications for hiding, but it is also something to strive for, a life situation where you don't have to care about idiots and pitchforks. What I think is vital is convincing everyone that a single piece of context-free information does not demonstrate the value of a person's entire life.
- odessacubbage 6y agounfortunately there's simply too much to be gained by rejecting context and willfully assuming the worst possible intent or even fabricating it; 'x/y/z is a dogwhistle'. live and let live does not seem to be a value that has been retained by secular moralism. i'd gladly be incorrect if it meant we could live in your world, that doesn't seem likely anytime soon though.
- bsder 6y ago> live and let live does not seem to be a value that has been retained by secular moralism "Live and let live" is cool until someone gives you the pointy end of the stick. At that point, you want a way to fight back.
- odessacubbage 6y agoand if either your next of kin or theirs feels raw about the outcome of that fight? live and let live is a vital principle or we all wind up on the pointy end of one stick or another.
- bsder 6y ago"Live and let live" is about allowing people to do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with me. Do you want have sex with men or women? Not my problem. Live and let live. Do you want to do drugs? Also not my problem. Live and let live. Do you want to shoot my dog? MY problem. Live and let live doesn't apply. Once you impinge on my freedom of action, "live and let live" is trumped by the needs of justice and fairness. "Live and let live" is NOT a license for you trample over me with impunity.
- warent 6y agoThe idealism you're expressing here is definitely worth aiming for. I'm unconvinced that basic human psychology as it has evolved is currently capable of such a thing. A close friend of yours points to someone you don't know and says "That person is either on coke or meth, watch out." Take that same stranger, now add the information that they are loved by their community, they have always been available and reliable for other people, which is in fact something you know first-hand because they are a dear friend of yours. One day they tell you in confidence "colechristensen I've recently been struggling with substances." In both versions, it's the same good person with the same problem, but the information we have presents them very differently. Does that not affect your behavior at all? I would be deceiving myself if I didn't admit that it would alter my behavior pretty dramatically. I am capable of being the proverbial idiot with a pitchfork simply because of how human psychology stereotypes and extrapolates on insufficient information as an evolved survival technique. Nature doesn't care if we're overly cautious 99% of the time, because not being cautious enough just 1 time can be fatal. What you're suggesting is an awesome ideal, but we have a long way to go before achieving that, and approaching it too recklessly can end up being harmful to ourselves if we're not mindful.