3 ms·

societies and civil discussions will not adhere to some moral and orderly procession, so let's not cling to that unascribable ideal. we're also per capita way l

societies and civil discussions will not adhere to some moral and orderly procession, so let's not cling to that unascribable ideal. we're also per capita way less violent and offensive toward each other than most of human history. sometimes repercussions greater than disagreement is warranted, and psychic injury to usher in real, positive change is a small price to pay, smaller than during most prior evolutions. but let's spell out clearly that the complainants are largely folks who want to assert power as privilege on minority groups and are meeting rightful resistance. it's true that sometimes the resistance goes too far, which is unfortunate, but that's a non-sequitur borne of an imbalance of perception, entitlement, and extra-sensitivity. that's the nexus of the clash, and a key part of why it just won't be civil and orderly. this is the internet era's version of a power struggle. feet are gonna get mashed and we're not gonna like it.

neonate 6y ago
This is a "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument. That is more honest than the argument I was criticizing, which pretends that significant harm isn't being done to people. You seem to be saying that they mostly deserve it, and if they don't, that's "unfortunate". Collateral damage, one might call it, in a righteous cause. I find it scary when people arrogate to themselves the right to injure others, and I doubt that it serves justice. But I appreciate the clarity.
- clairity 6y ago
  you're welcome! you're missing some of the nuance, the asymmetry of cause and action, though. there is already historic, perpetual violence, acting to subjugate and disenfranchise, and it's quite understandable and reasonable to resist that subjugation. the resisters weren't initiating this thread of violence but rather had it thrust upon them. the initiators activate the risk of injury on the rebound, not the resisters. no initial violence, no rebound injury risk. asserting dominance is risky business, no two ways about it.

neonate 6y ago

This is a "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" argument. That is more honest than the argument I was criticizing, which pretends that significant harm isn't being done to people. You seem to be saying that they mostly deserve it, and if they don't, that's "unfortunate". Collateral damage, one might call it, in a righteous cause. I find it scary when people arrogate to themselves the right to injure others, and I doubt that it serves justice. But I appreciate the clarity.

clairity 6y ago
you're welcome! you're missing some of the nuance, the asymmetry of cause and action, though. there is already historic, perpetual violence, acting to subjugate and disenfranchise, and it's quite understandable and reasonable to resist that subjugation. the resisters weren't initiating this thread of violence but rather had it thrust upon them. the initiators activate the risk of injury on the rebound, not the resisters. no initial violence, no rebound injury risk. asserting dominance is risky business, no two ways about it.