3 ms·

We have technical solutions to data security problems. What solution do you have for prejudice?

by gress 12y ago

angersock 12y ago
...teaching people not to be prejudiced? It's a better solution. (You could've replaced "data security" with "lawless minority" a few decades ago, and made the same--repugnant--point.)
- gress 12y ago
  I am not making a 'repugnant point'. I am in complete agreement that it would be better to fix social problems like prejudice and bigotry. The point I am making is that we don't know how to fix those problems quickly. In the meantime people are being hurt by the consequences and you are asking us not to protect those people. I think if anything qualifies as a repugnant point, that does. And no, you can't meaningfully put 'data security' in quotes and compare it to 'lawless minority' and act as though it is some kind of totalitarian repression. We are talking about stopping people's medical records from being hacked so easily. That is a practical and reasonable problem to fix.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
That some conditions are economically risky is not a prejudice, that's my whole point. Choosing the healthier person for a position is a perfectly rational thing to do, and increasing insurance rates with higher risks due to their health situation also is perfectly rational (and note that that's not just limited to health insurance) - you'd have to turn the whole economic system on its head to fix that.
- gress 12y ago
  Actually it's unknown whether it's the rational thing to do. It is only rational given a narrowly defined self interested actor making the choice, but that actor cannot know whether they are participating in a tragedy of the commons situation and undermining the overall environment (of employable people) in which they must grow and function. The fact that selfish actors can sometimes do more harm than good in the pursuit of their interests is the reason we have regulation.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    Thanks for writing it down, I couldn't be bothered ;-) And not only could the particular actor destroy their own environment of empoyable people in the long term, they also through some bad luck could get into a position where they themselves end up in the role of the (un)employable people, which also might make it "long term rational" to hedge against that by supporting a different culture. So, yeah, I meant only that self-interested actor with a particularly short time horizon.

We have technical solutions to data security problems. What solution do you have for prejudice?

by gress 12y ago

We have technical solutions to data security problems. What solution do you have for prejudice?

...teaching people not to be prejudiced? It's a better solution. (You could've replaced "data security" with "lawless minority" a few decades ago, and made the same--repugnant--point.)

gress 12y ago
I am not making a 'repugnant point'. I am in complete agreement that it would be better to fix social problems like prejudice and bigotry. The point I am making is that we don't know how to fix those problems quickly. In the meantime people are being hurt by the consequences and you are asking us not to protect those people. I think if anything qualifies as a repugnant point, that does. And no, you can't meaningfully put 'data security' in quotes and compare it to 'lawless minority' and act as though it is some kind of totalitarian repression. We are talking about stopping people's medical records from being hacked so easily. That is a practical and reasonable problem to fix.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago

That some conditions are economically risky is not a prejudice, that's my whole point. Choosing the healthier person for a position is a perfectly rational thing to do, and increasing insurance rates with higher risks due to their health situation also is perfectly rational (and note that that's not just limited to health insurance) - you'd have to turn the whole economic system on its head to fix that.

gress 12y ago
Actually it's unknown whether it's the rational thing to do. It is only rational given a narrowly defined self interested actor making the choice, but that actor cannot know whether they are participating in a tragedy of the commons situation and undermining the overall environment (of employable people) in which they must grow and function. The fact that selfish actors can sometimes do more harm than good in the pursuit of their interests is the reason we have regulation.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  Thanks for writing it down, I couldn't be bothered ;-) And not only could the particular actor destroy their own environment of empoyable people in the long term, they also through some bad luck could get into a position where they themselves end up in the role of the (un)employable people, which also might make it "long term rational" to hedge against that by supporting a different culture. So, yeah, I meant only that self-interested actor with a particularly short time horizon.