I believe the title is misleading out of context, I think it is meant to lack conclusions or clear statements and simply outline some areas for discussion ... a proposition paper?
I'm not familiar with what that really means, just jumping to an assumption about the intent of the paper that I think was not made clear in the title as is.
It would reduce my stress to imagine a world where my grandchildren didn't die from atrophy during the great power outage of 2079, where only the 10% of humanity that weren't reliant on exercise machines exercising their muscles for them, survived.
> In our culture, people suffering from schizophrenia or other forms of psychosis are more likely than members of other cultures to recognize their hallucinations as a symptom of pathology, but they also tend to have hallucinations that are very violent and negative.
I can see how encouraging positive relationships could be beneficial for anyone with such a symptom, regardless of figuring out if it's a symptom of pathology (depending on the culture context.)
A lot of information can be conveyed with body language, context and emotion, to the point where it's difficult to distinguish from telepathy. Most especially with folks who've spent a great deal of time together.
I'm maybe not the only one who's experienced bits of 'beaming' with a long time friend or partner?
Perhaps "I have a pretty good idea of what X is thinking" is softer language than "I'm reading X's mind", but I can see how the experience of telepathy is not greatly distant from something that's normal for many people.
Trump supports free speech? He promised to strengthen libel laws (pretty sure there aren't any such thing at the federal level now ...)
He said a lot of things freely, and a lot of them are interpreted by many as racist or otherwise categorized as bigotry.
I can see the viewpoint that supporting Trump is much more about supporting bigotry than it is about supporting free speech, based on his words and his promises. I have more trouble seeing the viewpoint of the inverse, at this point still.
Can't they both be immoral? Whole problem is catholicism is a state supporting religion that says "your government doing evil isn't your problem".
I pay my taxes, but I consider it the least moral thing I do, for my own morality.
I look at paying taxes the same way I view my drug addicted friend that just needs a fix so he can make it til tomorrow. I don't like it, I'm enabling his problem, but I don't want him to get into a worse situation or die.
That social approval is what defines what's socially acceptable everywhere.
Twitter has expanded the boundaries of politically correct / acceptable speech, by enabling that brown nosing and echo chamber re-enforcement and not cracking down further on what's acceptable speech on their medium.
And they would have given up control of the experience, and the types of discussion and interaction would have been different, and the "X and Y fought on twitter last night" would have become "X and Y fought on Zthingthatintegrates with twitter" instead.