There is a theory in complex systems called “normal accidents” about how complex systems like nuclear reactors inevitably (Ie “normally”) suffer failures via multiple failures interacting in unanticipated ways. This means some things are fundamentally more risky.
-
-
The common response to free-expression absolutism is “freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences”... as in don’t expect people to not yell at you or retaliate. If only it were that simple. The real messy problem is *others may not be free from consequences*
Show this thread -
To bring it back to the opening point, how do you judge a thinker? By topic, not method. How by topic? If a thinker routinely indulges in morally hazardous thinking where others are more likely to be hurt by erroneous conclusions, I do a double take.
Show this thread -
If they aren’t adding extra safety or taking on extra risk to compensate, I flip the bozobit. I’m doing this more quickly these days. There’s no excuse for putting others at risk with your bad thinking from relative safety.
Show this thread -
I’m fine with sloppy speculative spitballing and casual, loud, public thinking. That’s my own modus operandi after all. The trick is to then work on harmless topics and/or ones where you yourself are the one most at risk. If you want to move to meltdown topics, harden you methods
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.