File: 1693010901722.jpg (141.86 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
If you have a heterosexual relationship, you can identify that in public. If you have a homosexual relationship, it's controversial, but maybe. And if your relationship involves some kind of weird kink thing -- nobody wants to see or hear about that, keep it private.
Society is roughly a place for the normal. The assumption is that when people go out in public they consent to seeing normal things. They don't consent to seeing weird things -- that should be done in private where people can opt in or out.
So some process determines what presentations, activities, things, and ideas may be public and what ought to be private. What is this process?
I'm thinking of forming a science and tech society and have been thinking a lot about consent. The more things we consider private business, the more we can give people the option to consent or not, possibly reducing conflict. For example, should people's exposure to science happen only following consent? Would that make people happier about science?
I'm okay with that idea, I think people should have the freedom to pursue extreme kink and all sorts of weird things but some stuff should be kept out of the public eye
I feel like it's exceptionally difficult to adopt a standard for such things. I would support the idea that trans folk should be able to present however they want in public, but I remember the case of some Canadian teacher who wore absolutely enormous prosthetic breasts in public and in class and i don't feel like that was really appropriate.
I wish people could be trusted to have good intentions and exercise common sense around reasonability, but that's too much to ask our species haha
I think the process that determines these things is related to what is most helpful to the largest number of people. The things that society considers unacceptable is likely considered that way because of some trauama passed on from the previous generations. To protect oneself and others from further injury, certain things are resisted in some form another.
>I'm thinking of forming a science and tech society and have been thinking a lot about consent. The more things we consider private business, the more we can give people the option to consent or not, possibly reducing conflict. For example, should people's exposure to science happen only following consent? Would that make people happier about science?
That sounds like a pretty good idea. If everyone's stuff, including potential new content, was private or restricted by default, they could simply choose what they wanted to be exposed to when they were ready to be experience it, rather than feel like they need to hurry up and get with the program, so-to-speak. Maybe this is where AI could come in, as it could make beneficial recommendations to a person (assuming privacy was the default, unlike how it usually is today).
>>12452>That sounds like a pretty good idea.
Thank you. I will seek to marginalize science to increase people's freedom of choice.>because of some trauama passed on from the previous generations
Maybe. If there were a lot of wars with native people, perhaps Native culture should be minimized in public. I guess it could be stuff like that. Well, we need to be sensitive and empathetic to past trauma.
I don't think that there's a real solution for the issue per se.
Either you destroy the freedoms of certain politically and religiously motivated people by preventing them from hurting their perceived enemies, or you grant those freedoms and therefore in term allow the liberties of those opposed enemies to die instead.
If a police officer sees a robber holding a gun to the head to a bank teller, the officer broadly speaking can either a)do nothing or b)shoot the robber. To be blunt about it. And either action will be, understandably, subject to intense criticism. And as well, also understandably, the police officer will be nervous and terrified to be in that anxious situation.
That's fair, but then most people would lament that the entire situation had to happen in the first place.
Similarly, doctors would celebrate a car crash victim successfully having a piece of a steering wheel or the like removed from their body and that individual walking around happily recovered, while at the same time lamenting that the person had their vehicle slammed into to begin with. Somebody with a cancerous tumor successfully removed would wish that they could've spent the entire hospital time with their families relaxing instead in the first place. And so on.