3 ms·
I'm getting upvotes? And what's so subhuman about it? It might be quite freeing and desirable. No more enbeastifying than military indoctrination. And yes, yo
by swayvil 5y ago
I'm getting upvotes?
And what's so subhuman about it? It might be quite freeing and desirable. No more enbeastifying than military indoctrination.
And yes, you could be trusted to not lie. To eschew deceit. That is a highly desirable flavor of trustworthiness.
But yes, trusted to be a member of your particular ideological tribe would involve a completely different program and forehead tattoo, of course.
- tovej 5y agoSounds like prime material for sci-fi horror
- swayvil 5y agoYou people are square as delaware I swear. I can think of a dozen horrible things that are popularly embraced with both hands. And you guys don't even blink. My idea, otoh, might be awesome.
- swagasaurus-rex 5y agoCould these public servants be subject to being misled? They can tell the truth but they aren't all knowing, they won't necessarily know when they've been lied to. Could these public servants be become a tool for a more powerful political entity? Perhaps truth is more subjective than we hoped, or perhaps they have been conditioned with a failsafe - to keep them from speaking certain truths. Could these public servants decide they don't like the life they've been given? They are humans, not mere tools.
- swayvil 5y agoSubject to mislement, subversion or change of opinion? Of course not. The procedure would also induce omniscience /s
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago> "And yes, you could be trusted to not lie. To eschew deceit." Leaving aside that being unable to lie has nothing to do with knowing the truth, that poor wretch would be the most unelectable creature in existence. The voters do not want to hear that "we don't know what the right answer yet", "this solution is the right path in the long run but will cause poverty and suffering today", and other unpalatable truths that are largely unavoidable as part of governing a population.