4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoSooo 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 agoAgain, 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]