[naasking]

> Rawlsian veil of ignorance questions are all forms of shaming people for this completely normal human instinct

Shouldn't instincts be subject to reason and falsification, regardless of whether they're normal? If you can find little to no rational justification for preferring your instinctive choice, shouldn't you seriously consider overriding that instinct?

[circular_lights]

Absolutely not. Words and rationality are far inferior clumsy tools of communication (and - with respect to the nerds in question - tools of manipulation) to the vastly more multi-dimensional, multi-generational, tried-and-true, human instincts.

[naasking]

> Words and rationality are far inferior clumsy tools of communication (and - with respect to the nerds in question - tools of manipulation) to the vastly more multi-dimensional, multi-generational, tried-and-true, human instincts.

You mean the kind of instincts that justified slavery, that oppresses women, that justifies spousal abuse and racial or ethnic hatred? Yeah sorry, "instincts" have orders of magnitude more failure modes than reason and language.