3 ms·

You've just described the premise of growing into an adult. Congratulations.

fastball 6y ago
Not really? Children frequently demonstrate the same behavior. Laugh at the kid with X problem until you have a problem yourself, and now you dislike bullies. Growing older and realizing in general that things you did when you were younger are bad is fine and dandy, and indeed is "growing up". But only deciding things are bad when they personally effect you has nothing to do with growing older and is not a good look. It's just selfish myopia. Being an adult with a consistent moral framework is about being able to say "this is right or wrong", regardless of if it effects you personally or not. If you only notice something is bad when it happens to you, then that's basically what kids do automatically.
- ryneandal 6y ago
  Adolescence vs adulthood is the timeline here. Consider this: you read this anecdote and thought “I’m going to belittle this guy.” Says a lot about _your_ morals.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Huh, that's strange, because the comment I read said: > ...particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism... Which to me says the dichotomy in particular is "before autism personally affected me" and "after autism personally affected me". Calling people "autists" as a joke is either problematic and worth calling out or it isn't. You being personally affected doesn't change that. At least that is what I would argue is required from a consistent moral framework. Don't think that says much about my morals, just that I like them to be consistent / not myopic. Think about the thread we're posting in. This is basically about a company/industry that was like "these retail investors don't need protecting, they're adults and can make their own decisions, even if it means losing money", until those retails investors started costing them money with their adult decisions, at which point they change their mind and decide "actually they need protecting from themselves". The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you did the same, just swap out financial shenanigans for name-calling.

Not really? Children frequently demonstrate the same behavior. Laugh at the kid with X problem until you have a problem yourself, and now you dislike bullies. Growing older and realizing in general that things you did when you were younger are bad is fine and dandy, and indeed is "growing up". But only deciding things are bad when they personally effect you has nothing to do with growing older and is not a good look. It's just selfish myopia. Being an adult with a consistent moral framework is about being able to say "this is right or wrong", regardless of if it effects you personally or not. If you only notice something is bad when it happens to you, then that's basically what kids do automatically.

ryneandal 6y ago
Adolescence vs adulthood is the timeline here. Consider this: you read this anecdote and thought “I’m going to belittle this guy.” Says a lot about _your_ morals.
- fastball 6y ago
  Huh, that's strange, because the comment I read said: > ...particularly after having a child diagnosed with an autism... Which to me says the dichotomy in particular is "before autism personally affected me" and "after autism personally affected me". Calling people "autists" as a joke is either problematic and worth calling out or it isn't. You being personally affected doesn't change that. At least that is what I would argue is required from a consistent moral framework. Don't think that says much about my morals, just that I like them to be consistent / not myopic. Think about the thread we're posting in. This is basically about a company/industry that was like "these retail investors don't need protecting, they're adults and can make their own decisions, even if it means losing money", until those retails investors started costing them money with their adult decisions, at which point they change their mind and decide "actually they need protecting from themselves". The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you did the same, just swap out financial shenanigans for name-calling.