4 ms·

> It would be as if the word "christian" was a word created by athiests specifically to refer to those who did not practice what they preached. May off-topic,

> It would be as if the word "christian" was a word created by athiests specifically to refer to those who did not practice what they preached. May off-topic, but it might be interesting to note that 'christian' was similarly not something the Christians called themselves, but were derisively called that by others as in "followers of Christ or Messiah' alluding to the fact that they followed Jesus who proclaimed himself as messiah but was killed in a pitiful way in their eyes. The Christians actually called themselves "people of The Way" -- You make a good point that when starting with a derogatory term does not lead to a productive debate. How would the 'woke people' define themselves? For example, justice is not a new concept. It exists in every society, even the most primitive ones. So, justice as we have it in the US or West, could be seen as derived from English Common Law, which in turn was derived from the Bible's Judeo-Christian origins. Since the times and the culture of the people had changed, the laws itself have evolved. So, what should 'social justice' bring to the table? Are there opponents of these woke actions that agree with the perpetrators of sexual harassment? If not, why are we debating an area we are in full agreement?

praestigiare 5y ago
It's a good point, and I did consider noting that at one time this was also true for the word christian. But I think we agree that this is not the case now. There are several considerations that underpin my own thinking on social justice, but perhaps most relevant here is the concept of competing freedoms. It's easy to say that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, but the debate over hate speech is much more controversial. In the case of personal threats or libel, we do have a history of recognizing that there are potentially competing freedoms at stake when it comes to certain kinds of speech. We can productively disagree on how to balance these freedoms - even at the extremes - but the caricature of wokeness pretends that I don't care about freedom of speech at all, while simultaneously dismissing that there may be competing freedoms worth considering. I personally believe that freedom of speech outweighs the freedom to live unencumbered by impersonal threats and libel - but I also acknowledge the damage that allows, and believe we should consider ways to minimize or compensate for it. This applies to my example of sexual harassment, but in that case with what I will call "soft freedoms." That is to say, the hypothetical harasser does not have a right to work at that company, and the hypothetical victims do not have a right to not see a particular person. In a perfect world, a reformed harasser could return to work and get a second chance, and those they worked with could feel secure and safe. Given that we do not live in this perfect world, there is a choice in how to balance these soft freedoms. I think we might disagree on where to place this particular line, but probably not by very much. But the "anti-woke" would have you believe that I think that anyone who was accused of the slightest transgression should be fired.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  > I also acknowledge the damage that allows, and believe we should consider ways to minimize or compensate for it. But when the meta-discussion about how to compensate for it gets shut down, then the dialogue simply stops. No longer is the perpetrator the primary target, but the person who makes a statement questioning some part of it. Many of those cited in the article are actually on the left, and would generally agree with the broader positions, but now find themselves attacked with no recourse. -- Even in this imperfect world, the harasser can be put on 'probation' to see if there is a 2nd strike, the 'victim' can have additional monitoring... We need to build systems and processes knowing that we have imperfect people who sometimes make unintentional mistakes, or even if it was intentional, we can have systems that ensure that if they claim repentance, it is genuine

praestigiare 5y ago

It's a good point, and I did consider noting that at one time this was also true for the word christian. But I think we agree that this is not the case now. There are several considerations that underpin my own thinking on social justice, but perhaps most relevant here is the concept of competing freedoms. It's easy to say that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, but the debate over hate speech is much more controversial. In the case of personal threats or libel, we do have a history of recognizing that there are potentially competing freedoms at stake when it comes to certain kinds of speech. We can productively disagree on how to balance these freedoms - even at the extremes - but the caricature of wokeness pretends that I don't care about freedom of speech at all, while simultaneously dismissing that there may be competing freedoms worth considering. I personally believe that freedom of speech outweighs the freedom to live unencumbered by impersonal threats and libel - but I also acknowledge the damage that allows, and believe we should consider ways to minimize or compensate for it. This applies to my example of sexual harassment, but in that case with what I will call "soft freedoms." That is to say, the hypothetical harasser does not have a right to work at that company, and the hypothetical victims do not have a right to not see a particular person. In a perfect world, a reformed harasser could return to work and get a second chance, and those they worked with could feel secure and safe. Given that we do not live in this perfect world, there is a choice in how to balance these soft freedoms. I think we might disagree on where to place this particular line, but probably not by very much. But the "anti-woke" would have you believe that I think that anyone who was accused of the slightest transgression should be fired.

foolinaround 5y ago
> I also acknowledge the damage that allows, and believe we should consider ways to minimize or compensate for it. But when the meta-discussion about how to compensate for it gets shut down, then the dialogue simply stops. No longer is the perpetrator the primary target, but the person who makes a statement questioning some part of it. Many of those cited in the article are actually on the left, and would generally agree with the broader positions, but now find themselves attacked with no recourse. -- Even in this imperfect world, the harasser can be put on 'probation' to see if there is a 2nd strike, the 'victim' can have additional monitoring... We need to build systems and processes knowing that we have imperfect people who sometimes make unintentional mistakes, or even if it was intentional, we can have systems that ensure that if they claim repentance, it is genuine