4 ms·
> But we don't know if he was criminal. You're reading selectively. I also mentioned abusers and unethical behavior. You overlooked that because it doesn't f
by dpark 10y ago
> But we don't know if he was criminal.
You're reading selectively. I also mentioned abusers and unethical behavior. You overlooked that because it doesn't fit into your "justice system" narrative.
> But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad.
Yes, it absolutely is. The problem here is you're worried about punishment when you should be worried about the community. Shunning someone is partly about punishment but it's also largely about protecting the community. It is perfectly right to say "hey, you have predators in your midst and it's hurting some of your community members while you look the other way." The Catholic church issue is extremely relevant because it is the same scenario at a higher level of severity. Predators preying on the weak should be called out, and if the community doesn't do it, they should fully expect those outside the community to do so.
Your concerns here are especially nonsensical, though, because it's actually community members calling this guy out.
- js8 10y agoI am worried about the community. But I consider abusers to be part of it, whether you like it or not. I believe that shunning them out completely is worse than trying to rehabilitate them (which means some punishment plus some forgiveness). I see this as a variation of a NIMBY problem. If you consider community as a sort medieval thing, which needs to be protected from outsiders at all cost anyway, it's a perfectly valid strategy to deal with abusers by shunning them out. But modern world is not like that. The abusers have to live somewhere in the society, and if they are not allowed to interact with others, you will get a bigger problem. And arguably, USA applies this strategy the most from all developed world, and it is a cause of considerable problems. And I am saying again, what I specifically disagreed with was the call to other groups to shun him.
- dpark 10y agoI don't think that continuing to include serial abusers is in any way rehabilitating. It's just enabling. I'd be interested in hearing how allowing someone with a consistent pattern of sexual harassment continue to participate in the community will result in anything other than more of the same. To be clear, shunning this guy from the community isn't likely to result in him being a homeless criminal. He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job. What he might not find after this is a position of power and influence, which is a good thing. (Of course assuming the accusations are largely true.)
- js8 10y ago> He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job. But isn't this what the OP argues against? That nobody should consider him having good skills because he is a harasser? And regarding him having "position of power". I actually wish no one had a position of power, ever. I would even argue that the whole concept exists to facilitate sexual selection, and that's the reason why many people (of both sexes) will want it to exist.
- dpark 10y agoSure. I'd agree that the OP is arguing that basically no one should employ this guy. I don't quite agree with that, but I also don't think that it's a real concern because someone will employ this guy whether it's a good idea or not. Regarding power, I don't agree with your assessment. Positions of power exist to provide social structure. Yes, positions of power are relevant to mating, but humans would have power structures even if we started reproducing asexually. If you put a dozen people in a room and ask them to accomplish something, leaders will emerge, because the alternative is disorganized, undirected, and wasted energy.
- js8 10y ago> ask them to accomplish something, leaders will emerge, because the alternative is disorganized, undirected, and wasted energy There are studies that indicate that the "natural leaders" will be predominantly men, because of intervention from both sexes (both sexes see by default dominant women as worse than dominant men). And I don't think alternative is necessarily wasted energy, for example democracy is a pretty good alternative. It's hard to say what would happen if we were asexual, but maybe we would all readily agree on having democracy.
- dpark 10y agoDemocracy is specifically a method for placing people into positions of power.