5 ms·

You can see a glimmer of why he has so much trouble with trolls though in that post. He refers to Trump as "Shitler" and his supporters as "cultists" and then a

by itbeho 8y ago

You can see a glimmer of why he has so much trouble with trolls though in that post. He refers to Trump as "Shitler" and his supporters as "cultists" and then a few paragraphs later admonishes the reader to "Please do your best to be kind, and make an effort to make the world less terrible." "Do what I say but not what I do..." is a terrible way to get people around to one's way of thinking.

azeotropic 8y ago
The most interesting thing to me is how Wil's antagonists seem to have successfully taken advantage of Wil's mythos (consciously or not) to create cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure Wil gets that he's never going to have any inner peace while holding on to a mythos that regards him as subhuman because of things he can't control like his race or sex. Some of the thoughts in that post feel like they're from another century. Almost ike reading Jonathan Edwards' diary, where any time he catches himself feeling happy he has to go off an meditate on how he is but a lowly worm deserving of death. In both cases it's actually pretty self-absorbed, but at least Edwards had the good sense not to complain to other people (or even to himself in his diary) that the metaphorical hair shirt he'd put on was uncomfortable. In that sort of mythos, the only peace the righteous can expect is a life of suffering, since happiness and success are signs of worldliness (or, in Wil's case privilege).
naasking 8y ago
> He refers to Trump as "Shitler" and his supporters as "cultists" and then a few paragraphs later admonishes the reader to "Please do your best to be kind, and make an effort to make the world less terrible." Definitely, this post is littered with examples like this, like pointing out Gunn getting fired while Gunn himself cheered when the exact same thing happened to Roseanne. There's just so much hypocrisy on every side. If you want the moral high ground, then don't reach for weapons when someone disagrees with you. People enjoy when weapons wielded against those they view as enemies, but decry the injustice of them being used against those they see as friends. But in the end, war only benefits the war mongers. Dehumanizing people is never a reasonable response, and so weapons should never be needed, especially against fellow citizens.
- bena 8y ago
  I do feel that there is a difference in the Gunn and Barr cases. The things Gunn said have enough distance to them that you could reasonably say that he learned better since then. Firing him for something he said a decade ago seems off. Barr got fired for something she said that day. So I wouldn't say it's the exact same thing. What happened to Barr seems like punishment. What happened to Gunn feels more chilling. It's a world that will never tolerate or forgive a mistake. That "permanent record" your teacher warned you about has come to fruition.
  - naasking 8y ago
    Of course there are differences, but the question is whether those differences matter. The issue at heart is policing speech according to arbitrary mob rules, and employing that as a weapon against those with whom you disagree. People love inciting the mob when it suits them, but the mob is fickle and cuts both ways. Gunn's poetic punishment for encouraging mob rule was to be cut down by it. And frankly, I don't see how recency is relevant to such matters anyway. Should a murderer who was never caught still face justice 30 years later? Does it matter that "he may have learned better by now"? Either forgiveness and compassion is a virtue and neither Gunn nor Barr should have faced harsh punishment more than a few sharp rebukes to demonstrate what they did wrong, or they both deserved what they got.
    - bena 8y ago
      That's a false dichotomy. You are advocating for either letting people get away with anything or punishing people for life for a mistake. And let's not pretend saying words is the equivalent of murder or that what happened to either Barr or Gunn is the equivalent of the punishment faced by murderers. Murder is a far more serious crime than saying something insensitive. Even in the legal system, there is the concept of the statute of limitations. And it is different for different crimes. Forgiveness and compassion are virtues, but that does not lead to the conclusion that both Barr and Gunn should have been immediately forgiven for what they said. If Gunn had said what he had said the day before, then it would be a fair cop. But he didn't. The recency does matter. Gunn can legitimately say, "Yeah, I'm not proud of that. I know saying that is wrong now" and be convincing. It's been years. He's grown, he's learned. How much growing and learning can you do overnight?

by itbeho 8y ago

azeotropic 8y ago

The most interesting thing to me is how Wil's antagonists seem to have successfully taken advantage of Wil's mythos (consciously or not) to create cognitive dissonance. I'm not sure Wil gets that he's never going to have any inner peace while holding on to a mythos that regards him as subhuman because of things he can't control like his race or sex. Some of the thoughts in that post feel like they're from another century. Almost ike reading Jonathan Edwards' diary, where any time he catches himself feeling happy he has to go off an meditate on how he is but a lowly worm deserving of death. In both cases it's actually pretty self-absorbed, but at least Edwards had the good sense not to complain to other people (or even to himself in his diary) that the metaphorical hair shirt he'd put on was uncomfortable. In that sort of mythos, the only peace the righteous can expect is a life of suffering, since happiness and success are signs of worldliness (or, in Wil's case privilege).

naasking 8y ago

> He refers to Trump as "Shitler" and his supporters as "cultists" and then a few paragraphs later admonishes the reader to "Please do your best to be kind, and make an effort to make the world less terrible." Definitely, this post is littered with examples like this, like pointing out Gunn getting fired while Gunn himself cheered when the exact same thing happened to Roseanne. There's just so much hypocrisy on every side. If you want the moral high ground, then don't reach for weapons when someone disagrees with you. People enjoy when weapons wielded against those they view as enemies, but decry the injustice of them being used against those they see as friends. But in the end, war only benefits the war mongers. Dehumanizing people is never a reasonable response, and so weapons should never be needed, especially against fellow citizens.

bena 8y ago
I do feel that there is a difference in the Gunn and Barr cases. The things Gunn said have enough distance to them that you could reasonably say that he learned better since then. Firing him for something he said a decade ago seems off. Barr got fired for something she said that day. So I wouldn't say it's the exact same thing. What happened to Barr seems like punishment. What happened to Gunn feels more chilling. It's a world that will never tolerate or forgive a mistake. That "permanent record" your teacher warned you about has come to fruition.
- naasking 8y ago
  Of course there are differences, but the question is whether those differences matter. The issue at heart is policing speech according to arbitrary mob rules, and employing that as a weapon against those with whom you disagree. People love inciting the mob when it suits them, but the mob is fickle and cuts both ways. Gunn's poetic punishment for encouraging mob rule was to be cut down by it. And frankly, I don't see how recency is relevant to such matters anyway. Should a murderer who was never caught still face justice 30 years later? Does it matter that "he may have learned better by now"? Either forgiveness and compassion is a virtue and neither Gunn nor Barr should have faced harsh punishment more than a few sharp rebukes to demonstrate what they did wrong, or they both deserved what they got.
  - bena 8y ago
    That's a false dichotomy. You are advocating for either letting people get away with anything or punishing people for life for a mistake. And let's not pretend saying words is the equivalent of murder or that what happened to either Barr or Gunn is the equivalent of the punishment faced by murderers. Murder is a far more serious crime than saying something insensitive. Even in the legal system, there is the concept of the statute of limitations. And it is different for different crimes. Forgiveness and compassion are virtues, but that does not lead to the conclusion that both Barr and Gunn should have been immediately forgiven for what they said. If Gunn had said what he had said the day before, then it would be a fair cop. But he didn't. The recency does matter. Gunn can legitimately say, "Yeah, I'm not proud of that. I know saying that is wrong now" and be convincing. It's been years. He's grown, he's learned. How much growing and learning can you do overnight?