5 ms·
These arguments always attribute causality to someone with very little agency in those situations and minimize/victimize the actions of someone who did somethin
by avs733 5y ago
These arguments always attribute causality to someone with very little agency in those situations and minimize/victimize the actions of someone who did something problematic.
Let’s walk through it…
Person A says something bad (your ‘off color joke’)
Person B dislikes that and says so on the internet, loudly
Person C sees what B said and decides not to hire A
Your argument is that B is more responsible for Cs actions than A or C is. This particular brand of American individual freedoms is bought into by one end of our political spectrum in particular and is nonsense.
- theHIDninja 5y agoMy argument is that Twitter is 100% complicit and aware of what person B does, as well as the consequences of it (in this case, indirectly murdering someone). This phenomenon of ruining multiple people's lives in this fashion is also almost entirely localized to Twitter. This is why I believe Twitter should be forcibly shut down. Their entire business model depends on them memory holing the atrocities its users commit.