@SiddhiGal maybe more precise to talk about the nature of the boundaries here and not their binary over- or under- presence, no?
-
-
Replying to @LapisAlienus
@vajramrita But also definitions depend on whether 'definer' is inclined to over or under (when good meta defines people don't hear)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SiddhiGal
@SiddhiGal a circular argument, no? The definition of X depends on the X of the definer ... ?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LapisAlienus
@vajramrita I admit it's circular:), so is easy solution finding; nature of boundaries is complex but so is human nature that made
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @SiddhiGal
@SiddhiGal still not entirely sure which boundaries we are talking about :) ... are they the boundaries humans put on human behaviour?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LapisAlienus
@vajramrita Yes, and own behaviour too. A wise inhibitor inhibits oneself along w/ others b/c there's proper understanding of inherent bias
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @SiddhiGal
@vajramrita (nobody expects a wise inhibition *laughs*)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SiddhiGal
@SiddhiGal wouldn't it be great if nobody had to inhibit anybody else? :)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@vajramrita It would:). But as we have it now, no regulations is also a regulation.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.