And why does the fact an idea is extreme make it automatically something you’d want to dissuade someone from? Also why do you assume that one taking an extreme view, whatever it might be, would be doing so out of ignorance. I think you’re right one should always examine both sides of any issue however that does not mean one is going to change one’s position or take a more centralized stance. Take my political position for example. Having examined both the “right” and the “left”, having studied multiple political and economic structures and having had numerous and extensive discussions (which I could go into detail about at another time) the short of it is my position is that all government is obsolete and pretty much the same regardless of the position on the political spectrum. The more educated I became the more extreme my viewpoint became.
Moreover why do you think people should not adopt extreme viewpoints? Why do you support a conformist and standardizing mentality of ideas? Are you frightened by an idea of it strays too far from the status quo?
Also keep in mind engaging and challenging ideas only works with someone who enjoys having their ideas challenged. Someone who does not and who is sensitive to criticism would react the opposite way and would be repelled, perhaps even driven underground, by constantly having their ideas challenged and debated.
Hi Blindite2k, thanks for entering the discussion. Im not sure who you are asking but i would like to be clear about my thoughts. I believe 100% in freedom of speech on any subject. Without complete freedom to say/write whatever we believe then how can we inform, break prejudice, engage, debate.
The word evil has been thrown about a bit. I don’t see any benefit in being judgmental, we are all products of our environment.
Hi David, thanks for replying to my PM and engaging in this discussion. I am not talking about censorship or making judgement in any way other than to find some way to come to a decentralized consensus on whether or not an apps/websites shows/causes suffering to a vulnerable person or persons. Can we all agree that this is worth doing?
I think I can agree that it might be beneficial to have a kite mark system that apps can apply for voluntarily, checked by a Foundation/community recommended pod or something along these lines. Kitemarked apps will probably be more likely to become popular apps, so developers wouldn’t mind paying/donating to the system. This is just a vague idea to think about, i haven’t explored in depth the feasibility or any inherent problems as I’m not a coding person.
I can agree on the de-centralised consensus, but probably for electing members to the Foundation or big community issues such as “what should the fundamental characteristics of an approved app be” and the like but not in approving apps directly. In any case a user consensus will in fact develop in regard to how popular apps become, as they will be voting with their feet, just by using or not using them - a reputation system really.
It doesn’t and I didn’t say it did… I said the only way to dissuade others from adopting extreme views was by debating them openly.
Personally though, I think that some extreme views have harmful consequences in the real world: I recognise that this is subjective opinion and I am making ethical judgements, but these are also informed by reason.
Yes, it is not a panacea, and doesn’t work on the closed or bloody minded or indoctrinated…
However, if I see views as harmful then I will challenge them as I see fit for the reasons I gave; I do not need any consensus whatsoever and need nobody’s approval. If anybody’s sensibilities get offended along the way, then this is way down the list of my concerns tbh. Freedom of speech is the next in the list after the Golden Rule in my book.
Anyway, back to the topic of elephants in rooms, can you see the harmful extreme view in this instance? Young men are being brain-washed with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu’ran - what do you ascribe the underlying problem to?
What I mean is that we are fighting ideas here and we can only fight them with better ideas, we cannot bomb ideas from peoples’ minds, we have to debate and dissuade. Islamic State
Cheers
Darkness/evil/ignorance (call in what you will) is actually the absence of light/good/knowlede. A concept that is anything but silly, and the reason the safe network will thrive IMHO.
The problem with “evil” is that it is overloaded. I think it has validity, and I do use it. An alternative is “unconscious”.
Making something conscious - available to awareness - certainly helps people avoid being abused by others. Think about it, so much harm is predicated on keeping someone in the dark, which dis-empowers them.
Since SAFE is a means of making it hard, extremely hard indeed, to keep things in the dark, it has a “good” heart, IMO! Though like any tool it is open to exploitation for nefarious (like that word @Al_kafir :-)) purposes. Also, it will have its ability to shed light threatened by misinformation.
I support efforts to add signals (kite marks, qualities/values etc.) that help people make informed (aware) decisions about their interactions with SAFE, and to publicise what is acceptable to them. Two sides of the same coin.
I didn’t mention darkness, ignorance, goodness or knowledge, only evil and light and I stick by my assertion that evil as a concept, is indeed silly at best and harmful at worst.
These are completely different things and not synonymous with each other, therefore I can’t call it what I will. Listing opposite words doesn’t help to make “Evil” a sensible concept any more than saying, witch/wizard or up/down does.
You’d have to explain what your theory of evil is and how it works, in order to demonstrate it is not a silly idea.
I was fearful of an elephant on the room, turns out there is a herd of them. Forget your good, evil, darkness and light.
Im talking about suffering, emotional and physical pain. Yes those chemical reactions within our body’s which can make live unlivable. No hocus pocus just plane nature, physics and chemistry.
We have to build on top of what has gone before taking what was beneficial and leaving behind what is bad. I urge you to better the world in a way without casualty.