| 7 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it's specifically 'constructed disruption' that I have a problem with, which thankfully seems to be rare in this community | 12:45:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * it's specifically 'constructed disruption' (the bad-faith thing) that I have a problem with, which thankfully seems to be rare in this community | 12:46:35 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I do include "is disruptive, has been asked not to do that, and continues to do it anyway" in that | 12:47:24 |
 Irenes | I mean... I don't think I agree with that characterization | 12:48:13 |
| Irenes | to me, disruption means an intent to divide people | 12:49:02 |
| Irenes | that is not what the RFC is trying to do, and I don't think it's even an accurate description of what's happening | 12:49:23 |
| Irenes | I agree that putting the RFC forward causes harm, in the sense that there are people who have said some pretty intense things that have caused harm, and I anticipated that there would be people doing that, and I don't think that, like... I don't think that moral culpability stops at the person who makes the proximate decision | 12:50:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think tomberek is interpreting 'disruption' as meaning the event, not the action | 12:50:32 |
 Ellie | It's certainly brought to the surface some hitherto unseen thoughts | 12:50:33 |
| Irenes | like there is an argument that some people would make that anyone who is being intense with the goal of causing harm is responsible for their own decisions and nobody else is | 12:50:55 |
| Irenes | and I think that argument holds in many common situations but does not hold here | 12:51:07 |
| Irenes | I think I'm culpable for their actions because I anticipated that somebody would do it, and because inaction was a realistic possibility | 12:51:46 |
 tomberek | Or causing harm without intent. | 12:52:23 |
| Irenes | (and there's probably other factors, but this is a deep subject. what I'm trying to say is that this doesn't feel the same as blaming a person who's being blackmailed, to me.) | 12:52:24 |
| Irenes | yes, and I think the majority of the harm is without intent but not all of it | 12:52:37 |
| Irenes | I was just trying to avoid having to add more caveats by focusing on the part that's easiest to reason about | 12:53:01 |
| Irenes | I think something analogous could be said about the rest but it would be a lot wordier | 12:53:18 |
| Irenes | anyway, so there's two points I'm making. (1) disruption is not a fair way to describe the RFC; (2) this doesn't mean that I'm holding myself blameless | 12:54:40 |
| Irenes | I think this analysis is a very quirky thing, specific to me. I've been through uh.... several moral frameworks over the course of my life. | 12:55:44 |
| Irenes | I'd be surprised if joepie or ashkitten entirely agrees with it. | 12:55:56 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I don't disagree, I just also always consider 'harm caused by inaction' in the equation | 12:56:56 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | my life is, quite literally, a series of harm reduction tradeoff considerations | 12:57:19 |
| Irenes | sure, yeah, there's this concept of a "moral hazard" which holds that people who don't pull the lever in a trolley problem are never culpable, but people who do, are. | 12:57:41 |
| Irenes | and I don't buy that concept at all. | 12:57:48 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (also, I am quite literally painfully aware of the harm caused) | 13:01:31 |
| Irenes | I am weighing the cost of inaction, here, I was trying to allude to that. that cost is high. I just don't think it's so high that there aren't people in my position who would have walked away. | 13:02:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ah, in that sense, right. | 13:02:46 |
| Irenes | like if I'm taking the blame for somebody else's actions, I want to distinguish the cases where I'd do that from straight-up extortion, where I would take a dramatically lessened share of blame | 13:03:35 |
| Irenes | that's the philosophical nuance here | 13:03:41 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | oh no, I've been hackernews'ed | 13:04:13 |
