4 ms·

> 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 pr

> 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  By 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 ago
    Then 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 ago
      It'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.

> 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 ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
By 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 ago
  Then 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 ago
    It'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.