3 ms·
> Define strongly. Am I willing to lose my job to be right on the internet? No. But I think it is a mistake to think that those voices lose strength when hidden
by jhowell 6y ago
> Define strongly. Am I willing to lose my job to be right on the internet? No. But I think it is a mistake to think that those voices lose strength when hidden. Quite the opposite.
This means you'll rant on message boards and complain to friends but to no action, because you have something to lose which is good. Make bad decisions, say/do dumb stuff, pay the consequences - we are being more equally protected. This has not always been the case.
> I am looking for a reasonable rationale. Frankly, I do not understand some of the decisions people make.
In trying to understand the decisions others make, you should first listen. Otherwise, I think what some give themselves credit for as "understanding" is really just judgement.
Worst case scenario, you continue posting, your identify is discovered and your opinions become public and have real world consequences which you'll blame on the subjects of your opinion.
This, as the country continues to diversify in both public and private life (more women in government and business, minorities becoming the majority, etc.) is a dying perspective and new ones are being formed. You should try one on to see if you like it.
With respect to amateur psychologist it is not my intention. It is difficult for me to understand how you think and feel during the conversation without asking questions. The fact that you see this as me playing amateur psychologist could be projection on your part.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago<<Worst case scenario, you continue posting, your identify is discovered and your opinions become public and have real world consequences which you'll blame on the subjects of your opinion. Interesting. You say it as if it was the most normal thing in the world. You don't think I would be justified in blaming 3rd party for pressuring others into firing me?
- jhowell 6y ago> You don't think I would be justified in blaming 3rd party for pressuring others into firing me? No and I think that this is the significant portion of the problem. Do better.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoI can oblige. It is significant to me. You preach understanding and whatnot, but the moment I question your approach you deem it insignificant without attempting to understand. No rationalization, no reasoning. Just do better. Seems a little smug.
- jhowell 6y agoI honestly feel that that's where we are. We all need to stop, think and do better, not easier, smarter, faster, better. What's best. We all know the feeling in whatever we do. Not THE best, YOUR best.
- kthejoker2 6y agoBy questioning their approach, you're trying to justify the status quo, which is what has gotten us George Floyd and all others. You have to at least show how your approach is not the status quo; that is simply no longer acceptable. Honor, transparency and accountability are the tools of reconciliation and justice. From Socrates to MLK, Moses to Mandela, the moral duty has always been to reject that which is unjust to others even if it benefits yourself. You're asking us to "understand" an immoral position - the privilege to hold unpopular opinions and benefit from laws and systems that support those opinions. It cannot abide.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y agoThen we are at odds, because I happen to believe in that particular right.. not a privilege. Holding an unpopular opinion is about as American as it can get. My position may be immoral from your perspective, but your imposition on my right to be an asshole is immoral to me. So you have a choice. Either work with me.. a person, who is somewhat sympathetic to your claims, or go the zealot route of 'it cannot abide'.
- kthejoker2 6y agoIt's your right to hold the opinion, it's not your right to hold it and support those opinions with actions politically anonymously and without consequences.