5 ms·

It's really funny when people bring up things people said or did 10 years ago as way to knock them down a peg. If anything, it should show that a person has the

by Pigo 9y ago

It's really funny when people bring up things people said or did 10 years ago as way to knock them down a peg. If anything, it should show that a person has the capacity to change and mature if they are no longer acting the embarrassing way. It does bother me that people are expected to behave perfectly their entire lives in order to be a leader. It creates a situation that caters to psychopaths.

dwighttk 9y ago
>it should show that a person has the capacity to change and mature if they are no longer acting the embarrassing way. I mean, it can show that, or it can show that they have gotten better at image cultivation. And the latter is much easier to believe about a person running for office. (I'm not saying that is good.)
- Pigo 9y ago
  I guess my point was, who is capable of being honest and not being embarrassing at some point? A lot of comments seemed to assume I was talking about Trump, probably because that's all some people know how to talk about. But I'm talking about everyone. The only people who never say or do anything imperfect online have some sort of complex or maybe afraid of being punished by their Scientology buddies. Our brains don't finish developing until we're 26.
tachyonbeam 9y ago
What makes it even worse is that there are always people who will try to put forward the worst possible (mis)interpretation of what you said, ie: in the guise of social "justice", and the domain of what constitutes acceptable discourse (the overton window) is constantly shrinking. There is a fair chance that some of what you posted, which was considered perfectly acceptable and maybe humorous 10 years ago, is now considered toxic / harmful / triggering / misogynistic / oppressive / etc. Heck, what you say now can put you in trouble today. There are a number of opinions that I hold which I consider to be fairly balanced and mild, but am afraid to discuss online, because I think they could put me at risk. If you upset the online twitter mob, they're not going to fight you with coherent arguments and thoughtful discourse. They're going to insult you, threaten you, publicly shame you, and maybe get you fired from your job.
- andrepd 9y ago
  I think you may be exaggerating a tad. I think it is hardly a significant phenomenon, people getting fired from their jobs for saying stuff online. As for insults and threats, well that's a consequence of being able to say what you want to people halfway across the word. 99% of people saying mean stuff on social media wouldn't say it to people's faces.
- adventured 9y ago
  And further to that point, the way it works for partisans, is that if someone from their side did/said something terrible in the past, then presumably they have learned from it and should be forgiven; if someone on the other side did/said something terrible in the past, then it should still be used against them today. The political landscape in the US today is overflowing with that style of aggressive hypocrisy.
- nasredin 9y ago
  The attempts to demonize the words "social justice" are quite Orwellian. "Justice" is literally the last word in America that I thought would be used in some RWA-type context.
  - lainga 9y ago
    Yes, how dare they? I imagine Father Coughlin [0] and the NUSJ are spinning in their graves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
  - jklinger410 9y ago
    Are you familiar with how senators name bills in the US? The patriot act, no child left behind, so-on. If you are against the patriot act, are you against patriotism? If you are against no child left behind, would you prefer to leave children behind? I suggest you reconsider what end you define as Orwellian.
  - gaius 9y ago
    The attempts to demonize the words "social justice" How do you feel about despotic regimes that prefix themselves "Democratic"? People have been hiding behind benign-sounding words for a very long time.
TorKlingberg 9y ago
The problem is that people don't usually switch opinion completely, just moderate them. If 10 years ago you wrote about the proletariat rising up and now you just want universal healthcare, your opponents will still call you a communist.
gilleain 9y ago
Exactly - a decade is a long time; you can be a youth of just 60 years old and make locker room comments about women and furniture shopping that are captured on a hot mike! People should realise that we mature when we reach 70 and change our opinions :)
asveikau 9y ago
It's hard to tell when something like that is a deeply revealing character flaw that the subject will never turn around, or more along the lines of what you described. I think a lot of people's instincts, perhaps informed by life experience, is to assume the former. How often do you really see people improve on their character flaws?

by Pigo 9y ago

dwighttk 9y ago

>it should show that a person has the capacity to change and mature if they are no longer acting the embarrassing way. I mean, it can show that, or it can show that they have gotten better at image cultivation. And the latter is much easier to believe about a person running for office. (I'm not saying that is good.)

Pigo 9y ago
I guess my point was, who is capable of being honest and not being embarrassing at some point? A lot of comments seemed to assume I was talking about Trump, probably because that's all some people know how to talk about. But I'm talking about everyone. The only people who never say or do anything imperfect online have some sort of complex or maybe afraid of being punished by their Scientology buddies. Our brains don't finish developing until we're 26.

tachyonbeam 9y ago

What makes it even worse is that there are always people who will try to put forward the worst possible (mis)interpretation of what you said, ie: in the guise of social "justice", and the domain of what constitutes acceptable discourse (the overton window) is constantly shrinking. There is a fair chance that some of what you posted, which was considered perfectly acceptable and maybe humorous 10 years ago, is now considered toxic / harmful / triggering / misogynistic / oppressive / etc. Heck, what you say now can put you in trouble today. There are a number of opinions that I hold which I consider to be fairly balanced and mild, but am afraid to discuss online, because I think they could put me at risk. If you upset the online twitter mob, they're not going to fight you with coherent arguments and thoughtful discourse. They're going to insult you, threaten you, publicly shame you, and maybe get you fired from your job.

andrepd 9y ago
I think you may be exaggerating a tad. I think it is hardly a significant phenomenon, people getting fired from their jobs for saying stuff online. As for insults and threats, well that's a consequence of being able to say what you want to people halfway across the word. 99% of people saying mean stuff on social media wouldn't say it to people's faces.
adventured 9y ago
And further to that point, the way it works for partisans, is that if someone from their side did/said something terrible in the past, then presumably they have learned from it and should be forgiven; if someone on the other side did/said something terrible in the past, then it should still be used against them today. The political landscape in the US today is overflowing with that style of aggressive hypocrisy.
nasredin 9y ago
The attempts to demonize the words "social justice" are quite Orwellian. "Justice" is literally the last word in America that I thought would be used in some RWA-type context.
- lainga 9y ago
  Yes, how dare they? I imagine Father Coughlin [0] and the NUSJ are spinning in their graves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
- jklinger410 9y ago
  Are you familiar with how senators name bills in the US? The patriot act, no child left behind, so-on. If you are against the patriot act, are you against patriotism? If you are against no child left behind, would you prefer to leave children behind? I suggest you reconsider what end you define as Orwellian.
- gaius 9y ago
  The attempts to demonize the words "social justice" How do you feel about despotic regimes that prefix themselves "Democratic"? People have been hiding behind benign-sounding words for a very long time.

TorKlingberg 9y ago

The problem is that people don't usually switch opinion completely, just moderate them. If 10 years ago you wrote about the proletariat rising up and now you just want universal healthcare, your opponents will still call you a communist.

gilleain 9y ago

Exactly - a decade is a long time; you can be a youth of just 60 years old and make locker room comments about women and furniture shopping that are captured on a hot mike! People should realise that we mature when we reach 70 and change our opinions :)

asveikau 9y ago

It's hard to tell when something like that is a deeply revealing character flaw that the subject will never turn around, or more along the lines of what you described. I think a lot of people's instincts, perhaps informed by life experience, is to assume the former. How often do you really see people improve on their character flaws?