4 ms·

> It's not the job of people who are being victimized to make their attackers into better people, and framing it as an issue of effort v laziness is putting the

> It's not the job of people who are being victimized to make their attackers into better people, and framing it as an issue of effort v laziness is putting the onus firmly on the victims. Unfortunately it is the job of those sympathetic to a cause to support it, whether they are victimized or not. It's not "fair" or "right", it's just a reality that causes are advanced by those who care about them. Life is tragic that way. > Back in 2017, three bystanders tried to intercede with a guy who was screaming racial abuse at two women on public transport, and he stabbed all three intercessors, killing two of them. If he was ready to stab this woman, it is what it is. The lunatic who did the stabbing didn't get his way for free either. May they rest in peace. Lunatics are brave and motivated, and heroes must be brave as well. It'd be nice if heroes could be effective and strong as well, but we don't get to choose when life calls upon us. If that seminal Klansman were a lunatic, Daryl could have died that night. Daryl's a brave man, and that is unfortunately what is called for.

geofft 7y ago
But the daughter who wants to marry her boyfriend has no interest in the cause of getting her parents to change their minds - she has an interest in the cause of marrying her boyfriend. It is her job to find the most effective way to do that, which might mean cutting her racist parents out of her life. It is not her job to find the kindest way to do that and put off her marriage possibly indefinitely. It's not fair or right either. Life is tragic that way. Sometimes your kids find no need to empathize with you.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  The original point was about a parent deciding not to show his parents his daughter's boyfriend; but I can't help but agree here on what you're saying. I have no right to stand on any soapbox about going out of one's way to empathize with one's parents, and even if I could, I wouldn't. My point (in the original context, but it still stands) was more that if you are serious about it being a good thing for your parents to be at peace with your daughter's race mixing, then you have to be serious about accomplishing that goal. The best way is probably not lashing out or lecturing the elderly about your perceived disappointment with them. I suspect that people who do not consider their methods, are often not acting out of a sense of duty or charity, but instead engaging in an elaborate virtue signal, with the people they should care for standing as props.
anigbrowl 7y ago
This is nonsense. You're arguing that being a punching bag is the only valid moral course. In the case I mentioned the perpetrator was arrested by police, but you're waving aside the deaths as 'life is tragic, rest in peace.' Police were called out the evening previous to the attack when the same guy was verbally abusing a black woman, Demetria Hester, on the same transit line, but they didn't arrest him and seemed to suggest to the woman that she had brought it on herself because she had fought back against his aggression and kicked him in the balls. It's subsequently emerged that Christian had threatened police, and despite all this they didn't do anything until after he had killed (reasonably comprehensive details below). https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/09/13/alleged-max-killer-jeremy-christian-threatened-portland-police-prior-to-2017-murders/ https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/09/13/alleged-max-kil... Your whole position seems to be predicated on a kind of passive resistance, and if that gets people killed well that's just too bad. It seems like you're saying that anyone who actively resists or retaliates against aggression thereby loses all moral standing. That seems like a pro=aggressor position to me, since aggressors don't really care what other people think.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > This is nonsense. You're arguing that being a punching bag is the only valid moral course. The points you're arguing against are ones I never made, so I will not go to any effort to defend or disavow them. I get the impression you're making no effort to find sense in what I'm saying, and looking for an excuse to call it "nonsense". I don't appreciate that and I won't keep it going.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Unfortunately it is the job of those sympathetic to a cause to support it, whether they are victimized or not. It's not "fair" or "right", it's just a reality that causes are advanced by those who care about them. Life is tragic that way. [..] If he was ready to stab this woman, it is what it is. The lunatic who did the stabbing didn't get his way for free either. May they rest in peace. All I did was summarize your comments above for the sake of brevity. I do think it's nonsense, and callous nonsense at that. What sort of sense am I supposed to have found that I missed?

geofft 7y ago

But the daughter who wants to marry her boyfriend has no interest in the cause of getting her parents to change their minds - she has an interest in the cause of marrying her boyfriend. It is her job to find the most effective way to do that, which might mean cutting her racist parents out of her life. It is not her job to find the kindest way to do that and put off her marriage possibly indefinitely. It's not fair or right either. Life is tragic that way. Sometimes your kids find no need to empathize with you.

microcolonel 7y ago
The original point was about a parent deciding not to show his parents his daughter's boyfriend; but I can't help but agree here on what you're saying. I have no right to stand on any soapbox about going out of one's way to empathize with one's parents, and even if I could, I wouldn't. My point (in the original context, but it still stands) was more that if you are serious about it being a good thing for your parents to be at peace with your daughter's race mixing, then you have to be serious about accomplishing that goal. The best way is probably not lashing out or lecturing the elderly about your perceived disappointment with them. I suspect that people who do not consider their methods, are often not acting out of a sense of duty or charity, but instead engaging in an elaborate virtue signal, with the people they should care for standing as props.

anigbrowl 7y ago

This is nonsense. You're arguing that being a punching bag is the only valid moral course. In the case I mentioned the perpetrator was arrested by police, but you're waving aside the deaths as 'life is tragic, rest in peace.' Police were called out the evening previous to the attack when the same guy was verbally abusing a black woman, Demetria Hester, on the same transit line, but they didn't arrest him and seemed to suggest to the woman that she had brought it on herself because she had fought back against his aggression and kicked him in the balls. It's subsequently emerged that Christian had threatened police, and despite all this they didn't do anything until after he had killed (reasonably comprehensive details below). https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/09/13/alleged-max-killer-jeremy-christian-threatened-portland-police-prior-to-2017-murders/ https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2019/09/13/alleged-max-kil... Your whole position seems to be predicated on a kind of passive resistance, and if that gets people killed well that's just too bad. It seems like you're saying that anyone who actively resists or retaliates against aggression thereby loses all moral standing. That seems like a pro=aggressor position to me, since aggressors don't really care what other people think.

microcolonel 7y ago
> This is nonsense. You're arguing that being a punching bag is the only valid moral course. The points you're arguing against are ones I never made, so I will not go to any effort to defend or disavow them. I get the impression you're making no effort to find sense in what I'm saying, and looking for an excuse to call it "nonsense". I don't appreciate that and I won't keep it going.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Unfortunately it is the job of those sympathetic to a cause to support it, whether they are victimized or not. It's not "fair" or "right", it's just a reality that causes are advanced by those who care about them. Life is tragic that way. [..] If he was ready to stab this woman, it is what it is. The lunatic who did the stabbing didn't get his way for free either. May they rest in peace. All I did was summarize your comments above for the sake of brevity. I do think it's nonsense, and callous nonsense at that. What sort of sense am I supposed to have found that I missed?