3 ms·
That'd work great if people were earnestly considerate and felt like they were part of a community that they understood whose implicit norms they might consider
by swatcoder 2y ago
That'd work great if people were earnestly considerate and felt like they were part of a community that they understood whose implicit norms they might consider.
You don't need bans for stuff like that if people are attentive and thoughtful. People with pets consider other customers in a shop, shopkeepers consider people who are deeply troubled without the support of their pets, and a locally appropriate and nuanced equilibrium shakes out.
Unfortunately, we've largely allowed that prerequisite sense of community to erode in many people and many social interactions have become a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos, so formal and rigid policies have to take the place of subjective consideration.
- kiliantics 2y agoYour point is valid but if it's a good reason to stick with the ban then maybe we should be employing it to enforce other rules that would have a far greater impact. Not enough people are attentive and thoughtful and yet we allow them to operate massive machines in public spaces which kill tens of thousands per year. I don't think allowing pets on planes and in restaurants could ever have such a magnitude of impact as we have allowed by letting nearly anyone drive a car.