4 ms·

> Outing and destroying people who are not racist makes examples of them. Examples that are to be hoped to make people too afraid to speak out against the agend

> Outing and destroying people who are not racist makes examples of them. Examples that are to be hoped to make people too afraid to speak out against the agenda. There will always be such examples. Eradicating them entirely is a statistical impossibility. No social movement is perfect. No matter how much effort you put into perfecting it, the opposition will find fault with it.

free_rms 6y ago
But we're not talking about the opposition. We're talking about people who are ON YOUR SIDE but committed some trivial heresy, and getting burned at the stake for it. Does that sound like a winning movement formula to you?
- rectang 6y ago
  I don't believe that a morality-based movement will win the day, no. After a brief blip, the police will retrench and go back to being untouchable just as they have for many decades. Fighting that I think is a Sisyphean (but worthwhile) effort because people are by-and-large not persuadable when their interests as members of the privileged majority are at stake. If there is change, it will arrive because of demographic trends (as in California). And if it does, all the panic in this thread about ruining people's lives will come to nothing because having somebody fired unjustly was never in anyone's interest. It was just an isolated edge case being blown out of proportion.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Sooo since it's not easy to change policing, let's hang a few people that we CAN get as a substitute? That doesn't sound like a moral movement to me, it sounds like bloodthirst.
    - rectang 6y ago
      Again, it is not in the interest of anti-racism to have people unjustly fired for no reason. Suggesting that such outliers represent "bloodthirst" in the wider movement is a great example of fear-mongering and blowing things out of proportion.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Every time you get it wrong, the other side gets to use it against you. The more you get it wrong, the more ammunition they have. You can give them less even if you can't give them none.
julianmarq 6y ago
> the opposition will find fault with it. Your own side should condemn cases like those mentioned in this article far more than your "opposition". Even though you don't care about these people nor about any other collateral casualty, pretending to care will at least give the signal to those on the fence that there's the possibility that the mobs might stop doing this crap, at least eventually. If those on the fence realize that you don't care about them, they might stop caring about you and anything you might have to say. > And if it does, all the panic in this thread about ruining people's lives will come to nothing because having somebody fired unjustly was never in anyone's interest. It was just an isolated edge case being blown out of proportion. Those who were part of the mobs that ruined these people's lives cared enough to, well, ruin their lives, so the "not in anyone's interest" part is already false from the get go. But there's something far more worrying here than the falsehood. Let's assume these are edge cases—even though we all know these are three examples among many—what exactly do you mean by "blown out of proportion"? Something awful was done to these people and some of us are talking about it. Should we... Not talk about it? What exactly is the point here? > Suggesting that such outliers represent "bloodthirst" in the wider movement is a great example of fear-mongering and blowing things out of proportion. These are examples of blood thirst. Again, should we just ignore them? Why?
- rectang 6y ago
  Not that you'll believe me, but of course I care about the injustices done to these individuals. Even if they are only three among millions suffering, each tragedy is experienced individually and the overwhelming agony is borne individually. Every single injustice is hard to witness. For what it's worth I don't expect to persuade anybody of anything. I think that's unrealistic, even if learning from each other is not. > what exactly do you mean by "blown out of proportion"? These events occupy a tiny corner of a much larger picture of human suffering. Talking about them in isolation, as if the rest of the picture doesn't exist, is wrong.

free_rms 6y ago

But we're not talking about the opposition. We're talking about people who are ON YOUR SIDE but committed some trivial heresy, and getting burned at the stake for it. Does that sound like a winning movement formula to you?

rectang 6y ago
I don't believe that a morality-based movement will win the day, no. After a brief blip, the police will retrench and go back to being untouchable just as they have for many decades. Fighting that I think is a Sisyphean (but worthwhile) effort because people are by-and-large not persuadable when their interests as members of the privileged majority are at stake. If there is change, it will arrive because of demographic trends (as in California). And if it does, all the panic in this thread about ruining people's lives will come to nothing because having somebody fired unjustly was never in anyone's interest. It was just an isolated edge case being blown out of proportion.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Sooo since it's not easy to change policing, let's hang a few people that we CAN get as a substitute? That doesn't sound like a moral movement to me, it sounds like bloodthirst.
  - rectang 6y ago
    Again, it is not in the interest of anti-racism to have people unjustly fired for no reason. Suggesting that such outliers represent "bloodthirst" in the wider movement is a great example of fear-mongering and blowing things out of proportion.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Every time you get it wrong, the other side gets to use it against you. The more you get it wrong, the more ammunition they have. You can give them less even if you can't give them none.

julianmarq 6y ago

> the opposition will find fault with it. Your own side should condemn cases like those mentioned in this article far more than your "opposition". Even though you don't care about these people nor about any other collateral casualty, pretending to care will at least give the signal to those on the fence that there's the possibility that the mobs might stop doing this crap, at least eventually. If those on the fence realize that you don't care about them, they might stop caring about you and anything you might have to say. > And if it does, all the panic in this thread about ruining people's lives will come to nothing because having somebody fired unjustly was never in anyone's interest. It was just an isolated edge case being blown out of proportion. Those who were part of the mobs that ruined these people's lives cared enough to, well, ruin their lives, so the "not in anyone's interest" part is already false from the get go. But there's something far more worrying here than the falsehood. Let's assume these are edge cases—even though we all know these are three examples among many—what exactly do you mean by "blown out of proportion"? Something awful was done to these people and some of us are talking about it. Should we... Not talk about it? What exactly is the point here? > Suggesting that such outliers represent "bloodthirst" in the wider movement is a great example of fear-mongering and blowing things out of proportion. These are examples of blood thirst. Again, should we just ignore them? Why?

rectang 6y ago
Not that you'll believe me, but of course I care about the injustices done to these individuals. Even if they are only three among millions suffering, each tragedy is experienced individually and the overwhelming agony is borne individually. Every single injustice is hard to witness. For what it's worth I don't expect to persuade anybody of anything. I think that's unrealistic, even if learning from each other is not. > what exactly do you mean by "blown out of proportion"? These events occupy a tiny corner of a much larger picture of human suffering. Talking about them in isolation, as if the rest of the picture doesn't exist, is wrong.