[NicolasGorden]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. People are deeply different in their world perceptions.

I think you will love the Chinese saying of 'you can you up, no can no bibi'.

It does have a point I'll admit. But then we also need to consider the consequences of having such a perspective in the relationship between those who rule and those who are ruled. Most things are double edged swords. :)

[kbenson]

> I think you will love the Chinese saying of 'you can you up, no can no bibi'.

Lol, after learning it the other day, I'm not sure, but I guess it depends on how it's used? I sort of view it as a recent version of "Haters gonna hate." :)

> But then we also need to consider the consequences of having such a perspective in the relationship between those who rule and those who are ruled.

Yeah. I'll fully admit that there's quite a lot of room for the item we were talking about to not be benign, and the consequences of it not being benign are pretty horrible.

It's one of those things where my stance is more along the lines of "well, it's not necessarily bad, and here's an example why." The caveat is that it should go along with "buuut... we should look closer to make sure it's mostly benign."

[NicolasGorden]

We agree. It's not necessarily bad. But it's also perfectly reasonable to be concerned.

I think the difference is that I see selection for obedience as something most institutions will do unconsciously. It's literally the primary function of any institution, to self preserve. And self preservation for a system means that it's parts cooperate to the maximum extent possible. So I think we need to have a strong push back against anything that COULD EVEN be an unconscious selection for obedience. Especially in institutions.

An individual professor choosing to bring these questions up would have a VERY different response from me. I'm very open minded and love exercises that promote that.