Well, but, 1 is able to do evil mostly because of 3s. If you don't know what you're looking at you give the benefit of the doubt and don't guard against the worst effects. Bad actors take advantage of this.
-
New conversation
-
-
-
With few extreme exceptions, my argument for why there is no evil:https://mobile.twitter.com/ideafaktory/status/952756640683618304 …
-
And why measuring 'evil' based on intent, rather than outcome, is often a bad idea.https://mobile.twitter.com/ideafaktory/status/750424298662334464 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like this breakdown, but I think the vast majority of suffering comes from 2. people perpetuating assholery because that's all they know is almost taken for granted, but it is constant and everywhere. 1 is rare and 3 is very salient because it often requires social coordination
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nice refactor
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What worst means here? Social impact?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you rejecting the idea that Evil could be exposed to good and reject it? Thereby remaining evil?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Melkor: Bro, let me out, I'll be good. Manwë: seems legit. ("For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it...")
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.