Systems like to claim ideal ground on right and wrong. Systems like to claim ideal ground on who is hurt and who is not hurt by decisions made, by precedent set and agreed upon. System that does not acknowledge it hurts, delivers less than ideally at times is untrustworthy with a little, likely to be untrustworthy with allot.
Systems should not claim ideal bias reduced, ideal support delivered, that said acknowledged in truth is not always met with perfect people and perfect responses. There is reasons for systems, like systems of Government to not acknowledge truth in who they hurt, full damage perceived and comprehended in who they hurt as it has potential to reduce support, does not equate to it is always right or ideal value established.
Fuck we Ow, Fuck we Ouch, Fuck we Hurt might be claimed as necessary for adequate appreciation. Like Hospitals and Doctors – save people, they don’t hurt people. Like Jails and Prisons – keep crime off the streets, they don’t hurt people. Doctors make mistakes, Jails imprison innocents at times – setting precedent for Fuck we Ouch not all good.
Acknowledge that Hurt is real and reduced Hurt is less than ideally delivered factors into greater support, More Grace in the room yet might not always be ideal encouragement throughput
The system has made progress gets equated to has made sufficient progress. If you are the innocent in Jail, would you think the system has made sufficient progress?
Saving face, image factors into capacity for continued support has shown historic precedent for delivering less than ideally. Divesting from PR matters has shown historic precedent for delivering less than ideally.
A harsh system that is judgmental, and assesses people while not factoring in systemic oppression – picking and choosing which pain to value is likely to lead to less-than-ideal conversation. A system that is less than ideal oppression out should not be set to will always use truth and knowledge in way that is sufficient judgment and assessment that is less than ideal reduced. Systemic oppression factors into Image Matters, Image Matters has shown historic precedent for delivering less than ideally. What we turn up as a Society Matters yet is far from always adequately factored in. People trying to max profit do not always sufficiently turn up protection for others, and that factors into desire to protect self increased, which has shown precedent for turning up protectionism that delivers less than ideally at times.
If someone talked about their wrongs for 100 years without ceasing, there would be less time to talk about your wrongs. I can’t count on them to, shouldn’t count on them to talk about their wrongs for 100 years without ceasing, equates to they will sufficiently turn up their wrongs to protect me? Golden Rule delivers ideally on that? Image Matters and PR dictates who is protected and who is not.
Risk perceived and comprehended factors into Risks Addressed or Not Addressed. If the Golden Rule was amplifying perfectly we would all be talking about our sins without ceasing for 100 years – seeing as it does not work that way, reality and practicality that is more useful to some is what actually is delivered. People value and assess based upon proximity in less-than-ideal ways. Looks close to a star or hero or looks close to a villain is based upon people that talk about their sins in ways that less than ideally profit others. Their sin matters more set to a sin?
If someone was sneezing without ceasing for 100 years, people would have More time to say “God bless you” or More time to Oppress, call out flaws of others? God could make someone sneeze for 100 years without ceasing, but chooses not to, sets precedent? Has capacity to stop oppression but chooses not to at times does not always make sense, not sure should be relied upon for precedent. Implications of God sometimes, not always reduces oppression with claims of think better of others, and Golden Rule amplifies ideally?
Acknowledgement that Golden Rule Matters and amplifies less than ideally at times, factors into the Golden Rule. I want people oppressed less thinking of The Golden Rule and knowing that The Golden Rule amplifies less than ideally at times factors into others less oppressed, with greater capacity to protect against unacknowledged oppression. Claim it ideals doesn’t deliver at times, and delivery factors into less oppression, goal and objective of Golden Rule achieved.
Amplifies ideally could be read in two ways
- amplifies better value, closer to ideal for Society by being in by design
- always amplifies sufficient value, with zero problems, and ideal sin out (idealed)
Complexity in perception and comprehension matters, I have stated two ways does not equate to always it could be perceived or comprehended.
Put through a megaphone (amplifier) sounds good? Amplifies ideally?
False Dichotomies not meant as False?
Has potential to take an input signal generate a greater output signal? Amplifies ideally?
Details and motivations always set to known? I originally thought about two ways though I knew stating two ways might both reduce complexity and factor in less than all cases? Reduced complexity is useful for access to greater comprehension, and access to greater comprehension factors into ability to understand rare cases later.
Purposeful relevance limiting for the sake of increased comprehension throughput might lead to false dichotomies that were never meant to be a dichotomy in the first place. This or that more complicated than this or that at times, and not always actively acknowledged both for good reasons and ways that have potential to reduce comprehension. Writing factors into greater surface area for potential problems in communications, likely not always pondered by all.
Great Amplification might not equal Ideal Amplification, Ideal Amplification Sounds Good, better for sales, set it to Great? Music that sounds good and is encouraging set to Ideal Amplification? Not set to Ideal Amplification? Not very nice to say someone’s song is less than ideal amplification factors into said as ideal amplification?