4 ms·
I think we both agree that physical violence is off the table. "Due process" is important not because of physical violence per se, but because the impact of the
by DenisM 6y ago
I think we both agree that physical violence is off the table. "Due process" is important not because of physical violence per se, but because the impact of the violence is significant. And so is cancelling someone out - depending on a person's position losing their job could be a disaster. Well-off software engineers may not feel it, but most people do. The mob justice does not follow any sort of due process - accusations fly and Emmanuel Cafferty gets fired. The cancel culture did not eat itself, it ate an utility worker.
My point is that mob justice is not justice. Taking (in)action yourself is well and good, but the farther you want to spread it around the more rigorous your processes and standards should be.
- renewiltord 6y agoIt is not justice. But it is free expression and I'll preserve that easily because I'm not going to stop someone from saying "I will uninstall Firefox unless Brendan Eich is fired". They have that right. And they have the right to say "And you should too". I'll probably say "No thanks, man. I like Firefox" and then they can say "You're a bigot, too" and they have a right to all of these because freedom is more important than protecting your job. Freedom is fragile. I won't give one inch here because they will shatter it and remake freedom of expression in a stilted image if I give them the chance. If freedom is used to unjust ends, then the problem lies with the path there not the freedom itself.
- DenisM 6y ago> Freedom is fragile. I won't give one inch here because they will shatter it I suggest self-restraint and holding yourself to a higher standard before passing around harmful judgements. The farther you cast your accusations, the higher the standard. Who are "they" here?
- renewiltord 6y agoPeople who don't like freedom. So by definition that's what they'll do. It isn't a judgment. It is definitionally correct.
- lightgreen 6y agoThis is tautology. - Children need protection. They are eating children. - Who are "they" here? - Children eaters. So by definition that's what they'll do. It isn't a judgment. It is definitionally correct. Cf - Freedom is fragile. I won't give one inch here because they will shatter it. - Who are "they" here? - People who don't like freedom. So by definition that's what they'll do. It isn't a judgment. It is definitionally correct.
- renewiltord 6y agoRight, children need protection from children eaters. You won't find me questioning that. No logical fallacy there. In fact, that's what a tautology is, a statement that's always true.