4 ms·
> To you it's random stuff, firing - an act of outrage, to many it has meaning, firing - the right thing to do. The case I'm trying to make is one in favor of
by ex3xu 8y ago
> To you it's random stuff, firing - an act of outrage, to many it has meaning, firing - the right thing to do.
The case I'm trying to make is one in favor of restorative justice -- this means identifying the harms caused by an act, and seeking accountability by addressing the harms, and encouraging perpetrators to experience growth and personal transformation through empathy and understanding. I am not trying to say that the offenses are small, and people are wrong to be outraged and seek accountability for misdeeds -- in this specific case over James Gunn's actually terrible and seriously tasteless jokes. I'm just trying to make the case that as a society, seeking a pound of flesh or knocking over a statue every time someone's mistake comes to light is not an efficient methodology.
- auganov 8y agoIt sounds to me like you're assuming any previous reputation, recognition etc came from deeds, results, tangible effects that are by now timeless, and then outrage over information that may have no relation to these past merits unfairly ruins that legacy. While I believe the value we [0] ascribe to people, their acts, artifacts of their work was predicated on untold assumptions about their motivations, feelings, character etc. in the first place. New unexpected negative information simply ruins that value. It's not about the action itself. It's just like many can't ever forgive betrayal even if it seems minor in terms of actions. [0] or enough of us