pirgidb
Yes, you kinda did say that. You said people should leave their jobs if they weren't stimulating, and when someone pointed out this was lacking in nuance, you waved it off completely. Now you're dismissing anyone who is in that situation, oh they're just a slave, of course my remarks don't apply to slaves.
So yeah, you are refusing to acknowledge the flaws in your argument or the reality of people who don't have the privilege to prioritize their own enrichment over other responsibilities. And I'm not very impressed with that.
> Does that mean that the ideas cannot be discussed at all?
Just because someone challenges your ideas doesn't mean they're trying to shut you out of the conversation. I'm engaging in conversation with you. I wouldn't respond, and certainly wouldn't respond with questions, if I just wanted you to stop talking. Again, this is not a good faith interpretation of my criticism.
Imagine for a moment you are talking to someone who works a minimum wage job at McDonald's to provide for their children. How do you imagine they would respond to your suggestion they abandon their responsibility to their children to find a more mentally stimulating job? How would that be anything but patently absurd?
There's light-years of difference between observing an individual person's actions and drawing conclusions about what they believe (this is in line with what I was referring to with "catching glimpses") and generalizing to conclude that everyone is predestined to be either enthusiastic and lively or a miserable wretch. It's far more likely you caught someone on a good or bad day, to pick just one alternative hypothesis. People contain multitudes.
I also pay attention to the difference between what people say and what they do, and I agree it is meaningful and would even says it's a critical part of being around people. But it's easy to get carried away and pretend we know more than we really do, simplistic stories that explains everyone's behavior is very seductive. A model's ability to generalize is inversely proportional to how powerful it's predictions are. Stories like this that take people and bin them into two groups that control their destiny have huge predictive power - and apply to almost nobody.
Whereas to return to game theory, assuming people are black boxes that optimize some unknown and idiosyncratic utility function which we infer based on their revealed preferences can apply to nearly everyone and everything. But it's predictions are very narrow in scope. You can use an A/B test to optimize any change to any UI flow, and it'll tell you which one converts better. But it won't tell you why.
It's tempting to make sweeping generalizations about others to explain the ways they confound and frustrate us. But it's essential to hew to the truth and accept that life is ambiguous, people are baffling, and simplistic narratives do more to give us comfort and reinforce our biases than they do explain the world around us.
If you wanted concrete answers, consider emailing the mods and asking.
Apartheid wasn't about taking privileges away from people as a moderation action. It was about denying inalienable rights to people from birth. Your privilege to post on a forum is voluntarily extended to you by it's operators, and may be rescinded. It's an act of hospitality, not an inalienable right. You don't have a first amendment right to post on a forum and note than I have a first amendment right to compel your speech or demand you host me for dinner.
Apartheid wasn't enforced by mild and easily bypassed forum account restrictions. It was enforced with brutal violence.
People can get so myopic about mild inconveniences introduced to online interactions they expect to be frictionless and that they feel entitled to, and lose all perspective at the drop of a hat.