4 ms·

> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do. Well-stated, though in his particular case I think Ian might've do

> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do. Well-stated, though in his particular case I think Ian might've done himself a favor by publishing a piece by one of the accusers and their experience alongside the piece by Ghomeshi. I'm conflicted because I understand his point but I also understand the problem with giving someone in Ghomeshi's position a platform, which is that some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement.

stronglikedan 8y ago
> some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement. IMHO, that's a good thing, since I'll know who to ignore.
Udik 8y ago
> some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement. I think people should take full responsibility for their own personal interpretations. We worry way too much about how some people may interpret something. There are interpretations that are legitimate and others that are not, and we need to find the courage to state it clearly. The problem is that we have granted a superior moral status to people who proclaim themselves as victims; and stretching the interpretation of something to claim the victim status has become extremely easy, because once you've attained it nobody dares to question your interpretation anymore. Example: I say "A", you interpret it as "B", claim you're the victim of an offense. At that point I can't question your interpretation anymore because I'd be questioning your victimhood. Checkmate.
- RankingMember 8y ago
  I somewhat agree, though I would note that determining what constitutes a "legitimate" interpretation is a whole other can of worms. I think the current tendency to give self-identified victims more weight is simply a result of a pendulum swing after a long period where victims were given little to no consideration. That is to say, I think this is normal and will again swing the other way before too long. Obviously, the preferred state would be equilibrium, but I think we've got a ways to go before we reach that.

stronglikedan 8y ago

> some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement. IMHO, that's a good thing, since I'll know who to ignore.

Udik 8y ago

> some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement. I think people should take full responsibility for their own personal interpretations. We worry way too much about how some people may interpret something. There are interpretations that are legitimate and others that are not, and we need to find the courage to state it clearly. The problem is that we have granted a superior moral status to people who proclaim themselves as victims; and stretching the interpretation of something to claim the victim status has become extremely easy, because once you've attained it nobody dares to question your interpretation anymore. Example: I say "A", you interpret it as "B", claim you're the victim of an offense. At that point I can't question your interpretation anymore because I'd be questioning your victimhood. Checkmate.

RankingMember 8y ago
I somewhat agree, though I would note that determining what constitutes a "legitimate" interpretation is a whole other can of worms. I think the current tendency to give self-identified victims more weight is simply a result of a pendulum swing after a long period where victims were given little to no consideration. That is to say, I think this is normal and will again swing the other way before too long. Obviously, the preferred state would be equilibrium, but I think we've got a ways to go before we reach that.