4 ms·

I can't imagine living in a place where everyone is constantly moralizing about things like "media diversity". How exhausting.

wombatmobile 5y ago
What do you mean by "moralizing"? To me, "moralizing" is when I tell you to not do something that I don't like but which doesn't directly affect me. Like, don't drink alcohol to excess, or don't cheat at cards, or don't swear in front of kids, or always tell the truth. I have an opinion that media diversity benefits society, and I don't consider that "moralizing". I consider it caring about my community, and I consider opposing media monopoly to be fighting back against an individual who would denigrate society for his own ends. That's not moralizing - that's standing up for ourselves.
- nxmnxm99 5y ago
  That's not the definition of "moralizing". > Moralize definition, to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way Which is roughly what you (and the rest of the social justice crowd and, apparently, western Europe) just did.
dkdbejwi383 5y ago
I don't think I'd class "being concerned that the overwhelming majority of the media is owned and controlled by a single individual" as "moralising"
- nxmnxm99 5y ago
  I'd point out the extreme irony of this comment, but I suspect it'll fall on deaf ears.
  - dkdbejwi383 5y ago
    Nah go on
    - jacobr1 5y ago
      I think the disconnect tends to be the assumption that "moralizing" is bad, thus if one is justified in their proposal, they aren't moralizing. That isn't the case. To be moralize, you just need to be making an argument on moral grounds, repeatedly. The abolition (of slavery) movement in the 19th century was a moralizing one. And they were very right! The irony is when one proclaims not to be moralizing in their argument, but are indeed making a moral argument, insistently, including the insistence they aren't moralizing. The challenge is that to anyone who doesn't want to hear the message, having something be repeated continuously is frustratingly annoying. And it sure doesn't help any overall movement when specific extremes of that movement, or cherry-picked instances of that movement can be highlighted as representing the whole thing. This is certainly factor in the increasing polarization of society, for if the other-side is full of moralizing assholes, why should I bother listening to them? Especially if they are just going to keep repeating their same tired BS? This can apply to both sides of some many contemporary debates - independent of the merit of either side!

wombatmobile 5y ago

What do you mean by "moralizing"? To me, "moralizing" is when I tell you to not do something that I don't like but which doesn't directly affect me. Like, don't drink alcohol to excess, or don't cheat at cards, or don't swear in front of kids, or always tell the truth. I have an opinion that media diversity benefits society, and I don't consider that "moralizing". I consider it caring about my community, and I consider opposing media monopoly to be fighting back against an individual who would denigrate society for his own ends. That's not moralizing - that's standing up for ourselves.

nxmnxm99 5y ago
That's not the definition of "moralizing". > Moralize definition, to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way Which is roughly what you (and the rest of the social justice crowd and, apparently, western Europe) just did.

dkdbejwi383 5y ago

I don't think I'd class "being concerned that the overwhelming majority of the media is owned and controlled by a single individual" as "moralising"

nxmnxm99 5y ago
I'd point out the extreme irony of this comment, but I suspect it'll fall on deaf ears.
- dkdbejwi383 5y ago
  Nah go on
  - jacobr1 5y ago
    I think the disconnect tends to be the assumption that "moralizing" is bad, thus if one is justified in their proposal, they aren't moralizing. That isn't the case. To be moralize, you just need to be making an argument on moral grounds, repeatedly. The abolition (of slavery) movement in the 19th century was a moralizing one. And they were very right! The irony is when one proclaims not to be moralizing in their argument, but are indeed making a moral argument, insistently, including the insistence they aren't moralizing. The challenge is that to anyone who doesn't want to hear the message, having something be repeated continuously is frustratingly annoying. And it sure doesn't help any overall movement when specific extremes of that movement, or cherry-picked instances of that movement can be highlighted as representing the whole thing. This is certainly factor in the increasing polarization of society, for if the other-side is full of moralizing assholes, why should I bother listening to them? Especially if they are just going to keep repeating their same tired BS? This can apply to both sides of some many contemporary debates - independent of the merit of either side!