5 ms·
This is a good maxim for oneself, but a poor one when trying to understand or improve systems.
by canadaduane 4y ago
This is a good maxim for oneself, but a poor one when trying to understand or improve systems.
- ajmurmann 4y agoSuch a great point! I wish more people embraced having two philosophies. One for them as an individual and one for policy making/discussion. E.g. I never want to myself rely on the social safety net. Yet at the same time, I want nobody, no matter how bad their decisions are to die because their basic human needs like food and shelter aren't met. I think a functioning society, especially a democracy, requires these two mindsets from their citizenry.
- siftrics 4y agoHonestly, I agree. It can both be true that 1) a system could be improved so as to reduce harm to the average user and 2) ultimately the users are responsible for assessing risks before participating in the system. The problem is as soon as you argue for (2) everyone reacts like you're the most evil, heartless person on the planet.
- dvtrn 4y agoBecause the system you're passionately defending via the "personal responsibility" angle has so far demonstrably shown itself to be susceptible to the same externalizes of greed, avarice and "fuck you I got mine" misbehavior as the current system and people are lining up in droves to have their chance turning the grinder as long as it means they get a ticket to the sweepstakes. And the responses you're giving of "just be risk aware/just read the source code/just know what you're getting into" doesn't change that, doesn't educate the people who probably and realistically could benefit, and it doesn't change the fact that there is a LOT of obfuscation, misinformation and mishandling of trust going on in order to separate people from their actual fungible money.
- siftrics 4y agoI just feel like they're not incompatible. I think we can help these people who get screwed without assigning the costs to unknowing, unrelated passers-by.