I'm with Mansa on this.
A while ago I wrote this thread re: a thought experiment Bo put on Twitter--would you blow up this planet with 3 billion intelligent creatures or rather kill 30 humans on earth? What I objected to was the lack of moral consideration in that move.
Key responses I got were, a) what about research on violent video games that says people aren't affected negatively? and b) what's the sharp boundary for this objection, is it about these questions asked in research experiments, publications, or conversation and when and how?
It's not about a precise formula about which one of these questions and scenarios is okay and which isn't, when exactly, and with what details attached.
More about: I notice when you're asking your readers to jump into a scenario that asks them to kill several people, and there's little framework or care to consider why you think that's a justified thing to do now, or how you're trying to force them to think. I notice. Is all.
And that’s not a threat at all, by the way. It is a mental note among many such notes we take every day when we follow public discussion.
Some argue that we shouldn’t take such mental notes. That we should take each claim others make as if it’s sprung freshly from spring earth.
Some argue that we shouldn’t take such mental notes. That we should take each claim others make as if it’s sprung freshly from spring earth.
Those who argue such notes shouldn’t be taken in the free market of rational ideas where claims are tested on logic only, not on moral implications & def on who says it, they take those notes, too. Many of them have shown me how much note they’ve taken of past claims I’ve made.
Not sure if this is anywhere close to what Mansa was thinking about. There are several ways in which ideas and their way of uttering them can have moral implications.
@threadreaderapp unroll
