3 ms·

I agree that it's not simple, if that's part of what you are saying. Which makes it such a problem in my view. I look at the principle more than the specifics,

I agree that it's not simple, if that's part of what you are saying. Which makes it such a problem in my view. I look at the principle more than the specifics, and another entity deciding what I as an adult am allowed to interact with, that is one of the central stumbling blocks for me. I have a very strong desire for autonomy, and that includes coming to my own conclusions. What's good for society as a whole seems a lot more difficult to answer. This way or that way, I'm not sure most or even many supporters of this kind of access control think its consequences through to such an extent that they would have formed an opinion that I would consider well-founded.

clnq 4y ago
You say that another entity deciding what you, as an adult, can interact with is unacceptable. But the government has many laws that prohibit interactions with many things. You cannot trespass in many places, for example, to make things easier and safer for everyone. I am not as libertarian as you, and many people are not. It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you.
- brainchild-adam 4y ago
  > You say that another entity deciding what you, as an adult, can interact with is unacceptable. To be a bit more precise, what I am saying is that I prefer a higher level of autonomy in general. Any society needs to agree on how to organize itself, and questions of power seem central to this. What I am saying is that I prefer (a) to be consulted about decisions that affect me, and (b) that I'd like for these decisions to be based on rational, open-minded, curious, where possible fact-based dialog and eventual agreement rather than power politics or undisclosed, possibly questionable reasoning. I like to have a say in things, and I like to do so based on arguments I can follow. > It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you. I question the basis of the disagreement, not the disagreement itself. Why, exactly, do we disagree? Here I am just not convinced that it's impossible to move beyond said disagreement if both parties are willing to approach the topic in question with an open mind and, and this seems to be a big challenge, in agreement as to the frame and approach and reference points for said discussion. In other words, there seem to be people who are quite content with being more impulsive and judgmental when forming their opinions, who feel the need to question themselves and others to a far lesser extent than I seem to do. There seem to be people who are quite happy to make assumptions I would question. And there seem to be quite a lot of people who dislike being questioned or shown the flaws of their reasoning. Even if emotionally unpleasant, I prefer to be questioned in good faith than just being agreed with. It's one way for me to learn and grow. This, in part, seems to drive a lot of disagreements.
  - cto_of_antifa 4y ago
    I just want to say that I read this whole thread and while I'm not entirely sure i agree with you politically I think this statement is amazing and very well said.
    - brainchild-adam 4y ago
      Thank you, I truly appreciate you taking the time to let me know.

clnq 4y ago

You say that another entity deciding what you, as an adult, can interact with is unacceptable. But the government has many laws that prohibit interactions with many things. You cannot trespass in many places, for example, to make things easier and safer for everyone. I am not as libertarian as you, and many people are not. It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you.

brainchild-adam 4y ago
> You say that another entity deciding what you, as an adult, can interact with is unacceptable. To be a bit more precise, what I am saying is that I prefer a higher level of autonomy in general. Any society needs to agree on how to organize itself, and questions of power seem central to this. What I am saying is that I prefer (a) to be consulted about decisions that affect me, and (b) that I'd like for these decisions to be based on rational, open-minded, curious, where possible fact-based dialog and eventual agreement rather than power politics or undisclosed, possibly questionable reasoning. I like to have a say in things, and I like to do so based on arguments I can follow. > It's not that they don't think ideas through enough to have a well-founded opinion, as you say. They disagree with you. I question the basis of the disagreement, not the disagreement itself. Why, exactly, do we disagree? Here I am just not convinced that it's impossible to move beyond said disagreement if both parties are willing to approach the topic in question with an open mind and, and this seems to be a big challenge, in agreement as to the frame and approach and reference points for said discussion. In other words, there seem to be people who are quite content with being more impulsive and judgmental when forming their opinions, who feel the need to question themselves and others to a far lesser extent than I seem to do. There seem to be people who are quite happy to make assumptions I would question. And there seem to be quite a lot of people who dislike being questioned or shown the flaws of their reasoning. Even if emotionally unpleasant, I prefer to be questioned in good faith than just being agreed with. It's one way for me to learn and grow. This, in part, seems to drive a lot of disagreements.
- cto_of_antifa 4y ago
  I just want to say that I read this whole thread and while I'm not entirely sure i agree with you politically I think this statement is amazing and very well said.
  - brainchild-adam 4y ago
    Thank you, I truly appreciate you taking the time to let me know.