7 ms·
This is a hard question. For me there are a couple of thoughts in my head that are not yet fully formed into a single, coherent philosophy: 1. If you're advoca
by HelloMcFly 9y ago
This is a hard question. For me there are a couple of thoughts in my head that are not yet fully formed into a single, coherent philosophy:
1. If you're advocating for the systematic oppression of others based on characteristics they were born with (vs. actions they've taken), then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity that allows the rest of the world to engage with personally you based on your known behavior. I do not want to do business with, hire, or otherwise support someone who would deny the same to others for reasons steeped in racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc.
2. If you're advocating for violence against others, then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity. We should not tolerate physical acts and threats, even levied at those we find repugnant.
3. I strongly believe corporations should be able to make decisions that reflect their corporate values, provided those values are transparently and clearly articulated and don't single groups out based on characteristics they have no control over. Disallowing sites that promote the oppression of others can apply to anyone who has full control over the views they put out into the world. Alternatively, refusing to cover birth control in health plans can apply only to women who had no control over their sex, and are the ones that carry the burden of gestation. This is an unrefined view that requires more consideration on my part, and I am indeed cognizant of a potential slipper slope (fallacy or no).
All of the above is complicated by the fact that the Internet has a long - possibly unending - memory while people possess a capacity to change. I have no doubt many of the younger marchers this past weekend will come to regret their presence there. I don't know what to do about this.
This is half-baked thinking at the moment. It probably doesn't help. To respond to the other commenter: I do not support torture, even if I had a reasonable suspicion that the result would leave to many lives saved. I'd rather 100,000 people die in a world without torture than 50,000 people die in a world with it.
- ethbro 9y agoThanks for taking the time to respond thoroughly. You have as good a position as any, and similar to where I think I am. The one thorn I have is defining "violence" in the modern age. Specifically in situations of disparite anonymity. More and more, I'm tempted to classify "dox'd by anonymous strangers on the internet" as violence against an individual. Something like "gross violation of reasonable expectation of normalcy." Hypothetically, I attend a white supremacy rally. I'm photographed there. Two different situations occur after. Situation 1) A neighbor recognizes me on the local news. I receive shunning in my community based on those who disagree with my beliefs. Situation 2) The internet posts a picture of me (let's say through random chance vs others) and decides that I'm the face of racism. Campaigns are organized to disrupt my life as much as possible. Even though non-physical... there's sometime disproportionate about 1,000 strangers working to ruin one person's life. Especially as more and more of our lives are trivially influenced via automated and invisible information systems.
- s73ver_ 9y agoAt the same time, aren't "you as the white supremacist" working to ruin the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of strangers?
- ethbro 9y agoGood point! So maybe the moral calculus comes from a weighing of both sides ultimately effected. It certainly seems more just when looked at that way vs random meme person the internet fixates on.
- s73ver_ 9y agoTo be perfectly honest, I tend not to think of it too much because of that. I'm not going to partake in mass doxxing efforts, but I'm also not going to be upset when these people are shunned, or companies choose not to do business with them. There may be some ethics/morality questions that can be raised, but I believe those are more effectively raised when one of the sides isn't openly advocating for the things White Supremacists are advocating for. I don't really believe in the slippery slope argument being presented; if these things happen to a group with more moral nuance, the discussion can still happen then.
- ethbro 9y ago> if these things happen to a group with more moral nuance It's the "more moral nuance" criteria that terrifies me though. Because that's ultimately a proxy for "I feel good / bad about this group". If rules as usual are suspended for dealing with a group, I'm not going to rest it on "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" Advocating systematic oppression is a concrete reason. But what degree rises to forfeiting normal rights? Does the local judge who's pretty racist qualify?
- s73ver_ 9y agoI think you're overthinking the extent of things. Nobody is saying these people should be shot on site, for instance. But I'm not going to lose any sleep if they're shunned by society. As long as government is not imposing anything, I'm ok with businesses not wanting to be associated with them. Also, if you're going, "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" That implies that maybe there is nuance. I would argue that nuance is not present with Nazis.