3 ms·
At the end of the day, I don't think we can socially afford this kind of social engineering. The best we can, or should, do might just be "restrict actions but
by shrimp_emoji 4y ago
At the end of the day, I don't think we can socially afford this kind of social engineering.
The best we can, or should, do might just be "restrict actions but let people talk".
Let people talk about killing minorities but make it illegal to act on it.
Otherwise, you start imposing this whole fear-based command set of "you should never say certain things because I've decided in this moment that there's never a legitimate reason to ever say them and it might lead to action which we want to optimize out from even becoming a possibility because the Fourth Reich will rise irresistibly at any moment".
It's a deeply depressing outlook to have about your fellow man, and that itself will drive bad outcomes. "You think making edgy jokes is not legitimate and that I'm about to slide down a slippery slope of fascism? Well, now maybe I will, or at least pretend to, if only to troll humorless Orwellian cunts like you."
I.e., something like the https://psychology-spot.com/rebound-effect-in-psychology/ https://psychology-spot.com/rebound-effect-in-psychology/
- codeptualize 4y agoBut I think nobody is arguing that all of it should be illegal, but there is a big difference between legality and whats socially acceptable. That's often conflated, and actually the point I have been trying to make; you can say a lot of wild stuff legally, but you can not expect others to just accept it, not react to it, and not change their opinion of you. There are also things that should be illegal, as example do you think death treats are fine? Or is that what you are referring to in my comment?