How ethics became the most expensive problem of Silicon Valley, and philosophy - its most practical solution
Inspired by the speed of technical progress, people made the mistake of an inexperienced commander overstating his troops on the march: there are no questions to the vanguard of civilization, but what’s left so far behind is as if pinned to the past - the unnecessary needs to be thrown away, and the necessary should be kept up-to-date. Which of these options should be applied to ethics - the section of philosophy devoted to the comprehension of moral issues?
Along with the philosophy, pushed under the tags “nonsense, nonsense,” ethics is no more important than etiquette, and therefore is not considered either as a factor influencing reality, or as a source of finding solutions to a number of highly topical problems - problems that are purely problems of ethics, but due to the lack of ethics in public discourse, they remain undetected, misunderstood and unresolved, as long as costs continue to increase.
')
The word and the concept of "ethics" came up with the ancient Greeks to denote the philosophy of morality. I think it is possible without even touching the nature of morality itself to agree with the fact that every capable person, in one way or another, has a certain morality, manifested in his behavior and actions even if he does not realize it. In other words, morality is not an idea or an abstraction, morality is a very real behavioral phenomenon observed in every person; what makes material and the concept of public morality - based on the coinciding manifestations of morality in the behavior of the majority.
But ethics is an abstraction; more precisely, an attempt to cognize and describe the structure, logic and laws of morality; which turned into one of the longest riddles in history, because without knowledge of the genes and natural selection, there were already too many unknowns in the problem that the next 2.5 thousand reverse engineering of morality was possible at all. And in Darwina's standby mode, ethics turned into a battle of fan fiction — for lack of data, gaps were filled with speculation, for example, about the divine origin of one or another moral standard, taken as a constant — and this is what it is today.
This means that all currently known systems of ethics, value systems and norms, for the most part, are man-made. Moreover, regardless of the goals of its creation - whether it is a composition of new ethics from scratch, or another attempt to unravel the moral structure - none of them take into account the discoveries of genetics and evolutionary psychology, without which neither explain the moral nor develop an effective model from scratch seems possible.
It is precisely the need - the ethical problems that we face are part of our objective reality, affecting it, leaving consequences and even economically expressible - money doesn’t work well with morality, and it’s quite realistic to calculate the cost of ethical costs.
One of the most pressing examples now is a policy that guides online mass communication platforms (primarily social networks and social media), regulating relations between their users, with their users - and even internal relations in their teams.
The general state of affairs can be described as a deep rift under conditions of an ideological monopoly.
Political correctness is a secular system of ethics based on the interpretation of morality from the point of view through the prism of the left political ideology.
The main idea of ​​political correctness - do not hurt the weakest.
In some approximation, it resembles the legendary obsession ofTibetan monks, followers of Jainism, to live life, even without crushing a bug, because any bug can be a reincarnation of a deceased relative :
(In common parlance, Jainism, one of the ancient Indian religions, is not only confused with Buddhism, but also an anecdotal explanation of this tradition with the fear of crushing the beloved uncle’s reincarnation is thought out based on Buddhist ideas that the form of rebirth depends on the fact that a person has earned a previous life. Indeed, the philosophy of nonviolence in Jainism is based on the exact opposite idea of ​​the equality of the souls of any living beings. And Jainism is found only in India, not in Tibet.)
But in real life, of course, everything does not turn out so nicely as it was planned: and taking absolute care of some implies increased inconvenience for others - and if Jain monks take all the inconvenience upon themselves, then one of the fundamental ethical principles of political correctness is protecting the interests of the offended to the detriment of the interests of even the offenders, and anyone who occupies a higher step in the public hierarchy (in terms of political correctness).
Political correctness arose in the political movement of the new left. New Left - this is the beginning of the Western political movement for social justice in the late 50s.
The new leftists attempted to rebrand the left-wing idea, under which brand only Stalinism and its consequences were hidden by that time, including both the suppression of the Hungarian uprising by the Soviet Union and the condemnation of the personality cult of Stalin at the 20th CPSU Congress, which occurred in the same 1956 return to its origins before the "old left" "something went wrong."
There was no unity among the leftists regarding the idea of ​​class struggle, or the use of Soviet symbols, although the hammer and sickle were, de facto, a symbol of Stalinism, a symbol of replacing socialism with its complete opposite - it was a movement not so much ideologues as romanticists inspired to some extent by the humanistic ideals of the 18th – 19th centuries, and laid the foundation for the left idea as such.
The new left united activists who fought for civil and political rights, women's rights, against racial discrimination, against persecution for sexual orientation, police brutality, colonial wars, the start of the war on drugs, etc. It was a struggle against the domination of the ethics of morality of inequality, which was fixed by the hierarchical structure of society, the answer to which was the mirror interpretation of the manifestation of any inequality as a form of oppression - the cornerstone of the ethics of political correctness.
If the enemy is inequality itself, it is not enough just not to give weak to the offense, to raise them through positive discrimination, affirmative action higher up the hierarchy - you should be ashamed of any desire for success and growth of those who are already higher, less oppressed or not at all for the oppressed - it also increases inequality.
Actually, this is the key difference of political correctness from the usual tact: it is not enough to behave decently, without earning your success at the cost of someone else's misfortune - when the goal is equality, not freedom, it is impossible to be free from the guilt of the oppressor arising from the very fact of inequality, blame for white privilege , for example, or complicity in the patriarchy.
Political correctness sets the bar above the simple lack of fat shaming and body-positive attitude to people of any figures and builds - for this, the usual correctness would be enough; in the political correctness paradigm, to pump up your own press - also fat shaming.
(This is not a joke and not an exaggeration: political correctness has arisen in the struggle for social justice, this is the ethics of struggle, this is the ethics of wartime - therefore any situation looks like opposition through the prism of political correctness, and if fat shaming is recognized as social evil, political correctness stands in the custody of oppressed people with overweight, suffering, for example, from inequality in the area of ​​personal life, sex and dating - against, it turns out, all the others. And from this point of view, the press of others is not someone else’s business, but an increase in distance is aggravated s inequality, and even more unfortunate position on dating-front.)
The ethics of equality requires that a person “more equal than others” duck a little bit, shrink, in order to reduce the distance, and not exaggerate it.
The struggle for social justice is a joke, good thing. But there is a difference between the struggle of two views - and the reduction of distance in views. For example, the struggle for racial equality has long been completed. This does not mean that racism or discrimination has disappeared - it means that the discussion on “whether a black person is equal to a white person,” in which both parties had a comparable balance of power and confidence in the superiority of their ethics, is in the past. The distance between people remained - but the front line, which divided them, disappeared. The time has come for a value system that encourages cooperation and tolerance.
In these circumstances, the ethics of struggle — even if for a just cause, for social justice — is already becoming destructive, because if you look through the prism of political correctness, this is it, the front line, in place, and has not disappeared anywhere. As a result, ethics, winning in the fight against another value system, already acts as a tool of schism. Moreover, in the absence of a real confrontation with a different value system, the reasons for artificially simulated splits are becoming more absurd - as we see in a situation with a movement that began with Stounvolla, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, but who did not retire in time for peace - in which the very notion of a fighter for justice to the mocking banter of the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) go to a mortal battle with a decade of tweets and photographs of thirty years ago.
However, the persistence of political correctness is explained not only by the persistence of SJW - it became rotten by the 90th, and, by all indications, by the turn of the millennium it had already begun to fade away - and then she was lucky: the revolution had happened - the best gift for everyone left is the Web revolution 2.0, the revolution of social networks, which unexpectedly turned out to be the most fertile ground for the Renaissance of the ideology of political correctness, with new energy tearing the communication fabric with contradictions already in the 21st century.
The dismissal of 2017 by Google by James Damore, an engineer and a biologist by education , turned out to be a big scandal because in a research note compiled at the request of colleagues, he mentioned the biologically determined difference in the psychological predisposition of people of different sexes to different types of activity - in other words that women in software development are a minority, because the majority have found a more interesting occupation.
In a similar situation, Twitter, and with it, YouTube: bloggers are banned, videos are demonetized - and all this happens in a very nervous environment, because every user who agrees with what is happening will be found by the user who is unjustifiably reproaching the policies of different sins against common sense.
The Internet, just recently being a space left to itself, largely organized by self-organization, suddenly turned into a battlefield of sacred inquisition with heretics, who are almost literally trying to ban in Google.
This reversal would be extremely dramatic if it were not so ironic: social networks are created by asocial people. This is the logic: text communication is devoid of nonverbalism inherent in personal contact, traditionally difficult for autistic introverts - and it allows a slight delay in processing incoming information at the level of higher nervous activity, which in a lively dialogue that requires an instant reaction of a subconscious level would turn into awkward pause
But for most people, a nonverbalic is integral and necessary, like a chromosome, a component of healthy communication - without which people lose their sense of balance, which leads to various distortions of communication forms in space, deformation of the very principles of communication at the DNA level - in other words, online communication, how we know it today - grotesque, monstrous and destructive.
The good news is that people, for the most part, are not as bad as their comments - most are simply disoriented without the usual crutches as a stream of information in the format of non-verbal communication: I think this can be compared with the simultaneous adaptation of the eyes to the dark and the vestibular apparatus rolling in the hold of a sea vessel at night in a storm - and now imagine that there is also a lot of people in the hold who constantly bump against each other in the most awkward way - I think the general impression of the atmosphere and efficiency of communication prevailing there AI also does not inspire strong faith in humanity.
By the way, the gaining popularity of Emoji is very similar to the consequence of this deficit of nonverbalism, a kind of adaptation mechanism, a crutch for a person who is learning to walk again after a back injury. This is also good news, because the endlessly growing assortment of Emodji and the massive interest in their new species, at times, pushed to a certain train of thought.
But while the process of adaptation to the growing role of verbal communication has not been completed - as well as the evolution of means and methods of transmitting and receiving information online, too; Internet is a crowded, giant dark hold in stormy weather.
And before the crew of the ship, consisting of geeks feeling absolutely organic in this environment, the task is to establish at least some order among this disoriented majority and in their relations with him during the storm, although they didn’t understand each other very well, and in general, this ship was their salvation from all these land rituals.
And Jack Dorsey, who invented Twitter, suddenly found himself in the situation of an actorustika engineer who had designed a new stage for the Mariinsky, who was suddenly announced that from that moment on he gave two concerts a week, replacing Gergiev as a conductor.
How did he get into this situation? Indeed, for a long time Twitter, like Facebook, as well as YouTube, and many other platforms perfectly felt themselves in the role of a platform, and interventions in the life of the community, for the most part, were limited to resolving copyright claims.
In a sense, these were careless pagan times akin to the life of the inhabitants of the Caribbean islands before the landing of Columbus on their shore. In other words, the anarchic space of eclectic pagan beliefs first collided with organized religion — more precisely, ideology. This, of course, is about political correctness - and SJW as its missionaries. Using the ideological vacuum regarding the atomized community structure, SJW began to rock the boat, creating both demand and supply at the same time: the entire public network space turned into a continuous generator of righteous anger, indignation and offended feelings directed outwardly, speaking out, not without media assistance, nor as much,for all Odessa as it were, on behalf of the whole of the Internet: the internet is the internet sho - any activity outside - and inside, in full accordance with the paradigm of ethics of wartime, turning any communication space into this and that side of the front, involving more and more users, until they reach quite a lot of users, causing them an emotional reaction to their activity — no matter whether positive or negative — it’s important that that moment on Twitter there are already quite a lot of people who got SJW - or who support SJW: the split into two camps was successfully completed, and many users, especially on the “other” side of the front, didn’t even understand how they turned out to be attributed to a certain ideological common identity, but tribalism in man is rooted so fundamentally that even such an unobtrusive invitation is enough for primitive social instincts to take control of the behavior.
As a result, the space in which ethical discussions did not go beyond the limits of private fights, turns into a Verdun meat grinder of value systems - and SJW, finding more and more new perpetrators before the political correctness tribunal, create, at the same time, demand - an appearance of a huge, catastrophic scale, ethical problems: discrimination, harassment, heit speech, harassment, slander, disrespect, insults, as well as an ideological threat raising the head - awakening fascist reptile, anti-Semitism, ultra-right activism; and the proposal - that is, its value system as a model for organizing relationships between the community and the platform, the designer of the elements and principles from which it was possible to assemble the necessary policies governing the content, the relationship of users on the platform and the platform with users.
And in order to make the hint clearer, of course, the platform itself must also be subjected to merciless criticism for moral connivance as complicity, pushing towards the inevitable choice of a value system, on the basis of which the platform will be able to proceed to action.
It was then that it turned out that, with the exception of the chthonic horror of the ultra-right idea and the triumphant anarchism of the ultra-left Anonymus, the ideals of political correctness, protected by the soldiers of social justice, looked more like “generally accepted moral norms”.
Their pressure geeks had nothing to oppose - and there was no reason to do this: they knew that there was some moral norm, and, in the absence of alternatives, they decided that political correctness was the norm. And one by one, the giants of the industry opened their gates SJW, taking their faith, values ​​and side on the field of the eternal battle for social justice.
By this moment, I feel that the SJW army had already acquired an almost complete image of the evil, dangerous and purposeful force - which, by the way, with the light hand of Jordan Peterson, it became fashionable to see the entire left flank of the ethical-political spectrum.
There is nothing further from the truth - definitely, even the value systems, have certain evolutionary mechanisms of survival (not directly, but by means of their carriers, of course) - even ideas cannot evade natural selection.
But this does not mean that the spread of the infection of political correctness, which, in the absence of a real struggle for real ideals, increasingly begins to function as a cancer, even if tolerated by the individual conscious efforts of many people, has its own will or is centrally controlled.
The real reason for the growth of this cancer is the complete absence of healthy ethical immunity. Passionate about technical progress, people didn’t notice that ideological progress in many aspects stopped in the 19th century — the entire modern left idea, which grew out of the “new left,” who tried to reinstall the idea from scratch, that is, from the philosophical foundation on which Karl still stood Marx, losing sight of such trifles as 200 years of development of ideas about human nature in terms of biology - which should, in theory, be included in new releases of ethical systems, but this does not happen - because there were no new releases: about XXI century society went online, endows robots with legal subjectivity, solves cloning dilemmas, wonders what a meeting with AI will turn out - and at the same time tries to regulate the vast sphere of communication based on XIX century ideas, for two centuries now, they left-handed left-handed social organ to fascists , the liberals against the conservatives - which, by the way, fits perfectly on the tribal instincts of primitive man, managing to even more archaize the discussion, which thus represents 200 years of marmot day.
At the same time, in order to resist this value “explosion from the past,” you don’t even have to try very hard and create a new idea or a new philosophy: it’s enough to doubt the one that you have to deal with.
This, in fact, is about ethical DNA - the basic principles that underlie the policy of services in the management of the community: what behavior is considered acceptable, what content is considered acceptable, what complaints of users and what sanctions to respond. Moreover, in contrast to real DNA, ethical DNA is absolutely fully interpretable and editable - in order not to introduce into the business of the 21st century some old ideological sore from the 19th century.
Because any ethical system (especially, frozen in development for 200 years) is full of flaws. And it is not only possible, but also has to be subjected to critical analysis, without taking on trust a single postulate, not a single commandment — already reducing the conflict potential of the choice made.
Moreover, the depth of the finishing of the value system depends on the desire, ability and imagination - like “the wheelbarrow for pumping” in the garage of a good tuning studio: what if you drive out the same values ​​of political correctness (and at the same time conservative and ultra-right) through the discoveries of the last 150 years in psychology , , , (, , ) ?
, , — , , .
, , — , , — , .
, — .
, - , , , , , , — : , — .
. — ; , - , , .
, , , , — , .
, — . bullshit , .
, — « ». - — , , , , : .
— - , ; -: , « » — -. , , « », , — , — , «» «» ; , , , « ».
, , «» , — , , , , — , ; , , , , , — , — .
, Google, Twitter, Coca-Cola , , — , , , , .
, ( Google, ) . , - — , , SJW, , Facebook : «--, , , ».
, , , , , SJW — , , fake news ( , , ) — , , , .
Along with the philosophy, pushed under the tags “nonsense, nonsense,” ethics is no more important than etiquette, and therefore is not considered either as a factor influencing reality, or as a source of finding solutions to a number of highly topical problems - problems that are purely problems of ethics, but due to the lack of ethics in public discourse, they remain undetected, misunderstood and unresolved, as long as costs continue to increase.
')
The word and the concept of "ethics" came up with the ancient Greeks to denote the philosophy of morality. I think it is possible without even touching the nature of morality itself to agree with the fact that every capable person, in one way or another, has a certain morality, manifested in his behavior and actions even if he does not realize it. In other words, morality is not an idea or an abstraction, morality is a very real behavioral phenomenon observed in every person; what makes material and the concept of public morality - based on the coinciding manifestations of morality in the behavior of the majority.
But ethics is an abstraction; more precisely, an attempt to cognize and describe the structure, logic and laws of morality; which turned into one of the longest riddles in history, because without knowledge of the genes and natural selection, there were already too many unknowns in the problem that the next 2.5 thousand reverse engineering of morality was possible at all. And in Darwina's standby mode, ethics turned into a battle of fan fiction — for lack of data, gaps were filled with speculation, for example, about the divine origin of one or another moral standard, taken as a constant — and this is what it is today.
- In other words, having appeared in order to unravel the nature of morality, ethics did not go beyond the framework of speculation in its explanations.
- However, the real value of ethics lies in the development and study of man-made ethical systems.
This means that all currently known systems of ethics, value systems and norms, for the most part, are man-made. Moreover, regardless of the goals of its creation - whether it is a composition of new ethics from scratch, or another attempt to unravel the moral structure - none of them take into account the discoveries of genetics and evolutionary psychology, without which neither explain the moral nor develop an effective model from scratch seems possible.
- Having the right to claim the finality and loyalty of the system of ethics has not yet been created, neither has the very possibility of doing so;
- ethical constants do not exist. Moral are possible - but not proven, and without it, any ethical postulates are nothing more than variables;
- in other words, nothing is holy;
- therefore, to put any ethical postulates into question is not only possible but necessary.
It is precisely the need - the ethical problems that we face are part of our objective reality, affecting it, leaving consequences and even economically expressible - money doesn’t work well with morality, and it’s quite realistic to calculate the cost of ethical costs.
One of the most pressing examples now is a policy that guides online mass communication platforms (primarily social networks and social media), regulating relations between their users, with their users - and even internal relations in their teams.
The general state of affairs can be described as a deep rift under conditions of an ideological monopoly.
Monopoly of political correctness
Political correctness is a secular system of ethics based on the interpretation of morality from the point of view through the prism of the left political ideology.
The main idea of ​​political correctness - do not hurt the weakest.
In some approximation, it resembles the legendary obsession of
The Orthodox Jain filters drinking water so that there are no living beings there by chance (interestingly, do they hide the existence of unicellular life forms from them since Levenguk ?), With a special whisk sweeping their way so as not to crush an ant or a worm.
(In common parlance, Jainism, one of the ancient Indian religions, is not only confused with Buddhism, but also an anecdotal explanation of this tradition with the fear of crushing the beloved uncle’s reincarnation is thought out based on Buddhist ideas that the form of rebirth depends on the fact that a person has earned a previous life. Indeed, the philosophy of nonviolence in Jainism is based on the exact opposite idea of ​​the equality of the souls of any living beings. And Jainism is found only in India, not in Tibet.)
But in real life, of course, everything does not turn out so nicely as it was planned: and taking absolute care of some implies increased inconvenience for others - and if Jain monks take all the inconvenience upon themselves, then one of the fundamental ethical principles of political correctness is protecting the interests of the offended to the detriment of the interests of even the offenders, and anyone who occupies a higher step in the public hierarchy (in terms of political correctness).
Political correctness arose in the political movement of the new left. New Left - this is the beginning of the Western political movement for social justice in the late 50s.
The new leftists attempted to rebrand the left-wing idea, under which brand only Stalinism and its consequences were hidden by that time, including both the suppression of the Hungarian uprising by the Soviet Union and the condemnation of the personality cult of Stalin at the 20th CPSU Congress, which occurred in the same 1956 return to its origins before the "old left" "something went wrong."
There was no unity among the leftists regarding the idea of ​​class struggle, or the use of Soviet symbols, although the hammer and sickle were, de facto, a symbol of Stalinism, a symbol of replacing socialism with its complete opposite - it was a movement not so much ideologues as romanticists inspired to some extent by the humanistic ideals of the 18th – 19th centuries, and laid the foundation for the left idea as such.
The new left united activists who fought for civil and political rights, women's rights, against racial discrimination, against persecution for sexual orientation, police brutality, colonial wars, the start of the war on drugs, etc. It was a struggle against the domination of the ethics of morality of inequality, which was fixed by the hierarchical structure of society, the answer to which was the mirror interpretation of the manifestation of any inequality as a form of oppression - the cornerstone of the ethics of political correctness.
If the enemy is inequality itself, it is not enough just not to give weak to the offense, to raise them through positive discrimination, affirmative action higher up the hierarchy - you should be ashamed of any desire for success and growth of those who are already higher, less oppressed or not at all for the oppressed - it also increases inequality.
Actually, this is the key difference of political correctness from the usual tact: it is not enough to behave decently, without earning your success at the cost of someone else's misfortune - when the goal is equality, not freedom, it is impossible to be free from the guilt of the oppressor arising from the very fact of inequality, blame for white privilege , for example, or complicity in the patriarchy.
Political correctness sets the bar above the simple lack of fat shaming and body-positive attitude to people of any figures and builds - for this, the usual correctness would be enough; in the political correctness paradigm, to pump up your own press - also fat shaming.
(This is not a joke and not an exaggeration: political correctness has arisen in the struggle for social justice, this is the ethics of struggle, this is the ethics of wartime - therefore any situation looks like opposition through the prism of political correctness, and if fat shaming is recognized as social evil, political correctness stands in the custody of oppressed people with overweight, suffering, for example, from inequality in the area of ​​personal life, sex and dating - against, it turns out, all the others. And from this point of view, the press of others is not someone else’s business, but an increase in distance is aggravated s inequality, and even more unfortunate position on dating-front.)
The ethics of equality requires that a person “more equal than others” duck a little bit, shrink, in order to reduce the distance, and not exaggerate it.
The struggle for social justice is a joke, good thing. But there is a difference between the struggle of two views - and the reduction of distance in views. For example, the struggle for racial equality has long been completed. This does not mean that racism or discrimination has disappeared - it means that the discussion on “whether a black person is equal to a white person,” in which both parties had a comparable balance of power and confidence in the superiority of their ethics, is in the past. The distance between people remained - but the front line, which divided them, disappeared. The time has come for a value system that encourages cooperation and tolerance.
In these circumstances, the ethics of struggle — even if for a just cause, for social justice — is already becoming destructive, because if you look through the prism of political correctness, this is it, the front line, in place, and has not disappeared anywhere. As a result, ethics, winning in the fight against another value system, already acts as a tool of schism. Moreover, in the absence of a real confrontation with a different value system, the reasons for artificially simulated splits are becoming more absurd - as we see in a situation with a movement that began with Stounvolla, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, but who did not retire in time for peace - in which the very notion of a fighter for justice to the mocking banter of the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) go to a mortal battle with a decade of tweets and photographs of thirty years ago.
Political correctness of the XXI century
However, the persistence of political correctness is explained not only by the persistence of SJW - it became rotten by the 90th, and, by all indications, by the turn of the millennium it had already begun to fade away - and then she was lucky: the revolution had happened - the best gift for everyone left is the Web revolution 2.0, the revolution of social networks, which unexpectedly turned out to be the most fertile ground for the Renaissance of the ideology of political correctness, with new energy tearing the communication fabric with contradictions already in the 21st century.
The dismissal of 2017 by Google by James Damore, an engineer and a biologist by education , turned out to be a big scandal because in a research note compiled at the request of colleagues, he mentioned the biologically determined difference in the psychological predisposition of people of different sexes to different types of activity - in other words that women in software development are a minority, because the majority have found a more interesting occupation.
In a similar situation, Twitter, and with it, YouTube: bloggers are banned, videos are demonetized - and all this happens in a very nervous environment, because every user who agrees with what is happening will be found by the user who is unjustifiably reproaching the policies of different sins against common sense.
The Internet, just recently being a space left to itself, largely organized by self-organization, suddenly turned into a battlefield of sacred inquisition with heretics, who are almost literally trying to ban in Google.
This reversal would be extremely dramatic if it were not so ironic: social networks are created by asocial people. This is the logic: text communication is devoid of nonverbalism inherent in personal contact, traditionally difficult for autistic introverts - and it allows a slight delay in processing incoming information at the level of higher nervous activity, which in a lively dialogue that requires an instant reaction of a subconscious level would turn into awkward pause
But for most people, a nonverbalic is integral and necessary, like a chromosome, a component of healthy communication - without which people lose their sense of balance, which leads to various distortions of communication forms in space, deformation of the very principles of communication at the DNA level - in other words, online communication, how we know it today - grotesque, monstrous and destructive.
The good news is that people, for the most part, are not as bad as their comments - most are simply disoriented without the usual crutches as a stream of information in the format of non-verbal communication: I think this can be compared with the simultaneous adaptation of the eyes to the dark and the vestibular apparatus rolling in the hold of a sea vessel at night in a storm - and now imagine that there is also a lot of people in the hold who constantly bump against each other in the most awkward way - I think the general impression of the atmosphere and efficiency of communication prevailing there AI also does not inspire strong faith in humanity.
By the way, the gaining popularity of Emoji is very similar to the consequence of this deficit of nonverbalism, a kind of adaptation mechanism, a crutch for a person who is learning to walk again after a back injury. This is also good news, because the endlessly growing assortment of Emodji and the massive interest in their new species, at times, pushed to a certain train of thought.
But while the process of adaptation to the growing role of verbal communication has not been completed - as well as the evolution of means and methods of transmitting and receiving information online, too; Internet is a crowded, giant dark hold in stormy weather.
And before the crew of the ship, consisting of geeks feeling absolutely organic in this environment, the task is to establish at least some order among this disoriented majority and in their relations with him during the storm, although they didn’t understand each other very well, and in general, this ship was their salvation from all these land rituals.
And Jack Dorsey, who invented Twitter, suddenly found himself in the situation of an actorustika engineer who had designed a new stage for the Mariinsky, who was suddenly announced that from that moment on he gave two concerts a week, replacing Gergiev as a conductor.
How did he get into this situation? Indeed, for a long time Twitter, like Facebook, as well as YouTube, and many other platforms perfectly felt themselves in the role of a platform, and interventions in the life of the community, for the most part, were limited to resolving copyright claims.
In a sense, these were careless pagan times akin to the life of the inhabitants of the Caribbean islands before the landing of Columbus on their shore. In other words, the anarchic space of eclectic pagan beliefs first collided with organized religion — more precisely, ideology. This, of course, is about political correctness - and SJW as its missionaries. Using the ideological vacuum regarding the atomized community structure, SJW began to rock the boat, creating both demand and supply at the same time: the entire public network space turned into a continuous generator of righteous anger, indignation and offended feelings directed outwardly, speaking out, not without media assistance, nor as much,
As a result, the space in which ethical discussions did not go beyond the limits of private fights, turns into a Verdun meat grinder of value systems - and SJW, finding more and more new perpetrators before the political correctness tribunal, create, at the same time, demand - an appearance of a huge, catastrophic scale, ethical problems: discrimination, harassment, heit speech, harassment, slander, disrespect, insults, as well as an ideological threat raising the head - awakening fascist reptile, anti-Semitism, ultra-right activism; and the proposal - that is, its value system as a model for organizing relationships between the community and the platform, the designer of the elements and principles from which it was possible to assemble the necessary policies governing the content, the relationship of users on the platform and the platform with users.
And in order to make the hint clearer, of course, the platform itself must also be subjected to merciless criticism for moral connivance as complicity, pushing towards the inevitable choice of a value system, on the basis of which the platform will be able to proceed to action.
It was then that it turned out that, with the exception of the chthonic horror of the ultra-right idea and the triumphant anarchism of the ultra-left Anonymus, the ideals of political correctness, protected by the soldiers of social justice, looked more like “generally accepted moral norms”.
Their pressure geeks had nothing to oppose - and there was no reason to do this: they knew that there was some moral norm, and, in the absence of alternatives, they decided that political correctness was the norm. And one by one, the giants of the industry opened their gates SJW, taking their faith, values ​​and side on the field of the eternal battle for social justice.
However, it is not a matter of political correctness that is not a problem, but only its index.
By this moment, I feel that the SJW army had already acquired an almost complete image of the evil, dangerous and purposeful force - which, by the way, with the light hand of Jordan Peterson, it became fashionable to see the entire left flank of the ethical-political spectrum.
There is nothing further from the truth - definitely, even the value systems, have certain evolutionary mechanisms of survival (not directly, but by means of their carriers, of course) - even ideas cannot evade natural selection.
But this does not mean that the spread of the infection of political correctness, which, in the absence of a real struggle for real ideals, increasingly begins to function as a cancer, even if tolerated by the individual conscious efforts of many people, has its own will or is centrally controlled.
The real reason for the growth of this cancer is the complete absence of healthy ethical immunity. Passionate about technical progress, people didn’t notice that ideological progress in many aspects stopped in the 19th century — the entire modern left idea, which grew out of the “new left,” who tried to reinstall the idea from scratch, that is, from the philosophical foundation on which Karl still stood Marx, losing sight of such trifles as 200 years of development of ideas about human nature in terms of biology - which should, in theory, be included in new releases of ethical systems, but this does not happen - because there were no new releases: about XXI century society went online, endows robots with legal subjectivity, solves cloning dilemmas, wonders what a meeting with AI will turn out - and at the same time tries to regulate the vast sphere of communication based on XIX century ideas, for two centuries now, they left-handed left-handed social organ to fascists , the liberals against the conservatives - which, by the way, fits perfectly on the tribal instincts of primitive man, managing to even more archaize the discussion, which thus represents 200 years of marmot day.
At the same time, in order to resist this value “explosion from the past,” you don’t even have to try very hard and create a new idea or a new philosophy: it’s enough to doubt the one that you have to deal with.
Ethical consulting is an effective nonexistent solution to a real unstated problem.
This, in fact, is about ethical DNA - the basic principles that underlie the policy of services in the management of the community: what behavior is considered acceptable, what content is considered acceptable, what complaints of users and what sanctions to respond. Moreover, in contrast to real DNA, ethical DNA is absolutely fully interpretable and editable - in order not to introduce into the business of the 21st century some old ideological sore from the 19th century.
Because any ethical system (especially, frozen in development for 200 years) is full of flaws. And it is not only possible, but also has to be subjected to critical analysis, without taking on trust a single postulate, not a single commandment — already reducing the conflict potential of the choice made.
Moreover, the depth of the finishing of the value system depends on the desire, ability and imagination - like “the wheelbarrow for pumping” in the garage of a good tuning studio: what if you drive out the same values ​​of political correctness (and at the same time conservative and ultra-right) through the discoveries of the last 150 years in psychology , , , (, , ) ?
, , — , , .
, , — , , — , .
, — .
, - , , , , , , — : , — .
. — ; , - , , .
, , , , — , .
, — . bullshit , .
, — « ». - — , , , , : .
— - , ; -: , « » — -. , , « », , — , — , «» «» ; , , , « ».
, , «» , — , , , , — , ; , , , , , — , — .
, Google, Twitter, Coca-Cola , , — , , , , .
, ( Google, ) . , - — , , SJW, , Facebook : «--, , , ».
, , , , , SJW — , , fake news ( , , ) — , , , .
PS — .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/441158/
All Articles