4 ms·
I don't think it's mutually exclusive. You can deny chainsaws to bad actors while also trying to reduce the number of bad actors compassionately and nonviolentl
by mxkopy 3y ago
I don't think it's mutually exclusive. You can deny chainsaws to bad actors while also trying to reduce the number of bad actors compassionately and nonviolently. In the drug war analogy, maybe decriminalize possession but heavily regulate production/sales.
- doctor_eval 3y agoTerms like “bad actors” are part of the problem. Most people with chainsaws are trying to feed their family. They may be “bad actors” at one scale, but they are “good actors” to the people whose opinion matters to them. It is this kind of language, and indeed this kind of problem, that makes resolving it so complicated.
- mxkopy 3y agoI think it depends. To me bad actor seems more like a technical term than a moral one. I can see how it's easy to pass judgment on people described literally as "bad" in some way, but only if I'm unprofessionally intertwining my morals with my ethics. If you don't believe in punishment in the first place then such terms lose their deontological charge.
- doctor_eval 3y agoIf a technical term has the effect of framing a specific viewpoint, then it's perhaps not a very good technical term. I'm not actually convinced that it is a technical term, but even if it is, that's ultimately just an argument from authority.
- mxkopy 3y agoThe word "induction" frames a very specific viewpoint for a mathematician that's different from the specific viewpoint of an electrician. Your argument falls apart if you consider that people can have different viewpoints. Also, bad actor is usually used in cybersecurity contexts. It could be a scammer or your CTO testing you - shouldn't really matter.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- doctor_eval 3y agoNo, the word “induction” has a different meaning in different contexts. So does “transformer”. So does “embedding”. So what? “Bad actor” is a common phrase that frames a subject as acting maliciously. It’s not a term of art, and this framing is compatible with its use in security. Farmers with chainsaws are not automatically bad actors because their actions are mostly not malicious. They are often acting legally, or are encouraged to act illegally under a regime of intentionally loose enforcement (“everyone does it”). It is a political problem where the term “bad actor” is relative to the political position of the observer. That’s why terms like “bad actor” are unhelpful. It frames all the subjects as malicious, when in many cases their actions are perfectly reasonable and often perfectly legal. Some farmers with chain saws are bad actors, but not all of them. We need to help all of them.