3 ms·
> The alternative of doing so is to state that public writing is of no consequence and that writers should be held unaccountable for their own actions. This "a
by civilized 4y ago
> The alternative of doing so is to state that public writing is of no consequence and that writers should be held unaccountable for their own actions.
This "accountability" rhetoric conjures up an image of a one-man tribunal, hastily set up in the middle of the public square, demanding that passers-by submit to judgment.
Accountability goes both ways. Maybe you should provide an account for why you feel the need to hold others "accountable". Why not just ignore writing that you find too vague to be meaningful to you?
- plaguepilled 4y agoThat's whataboutism, not a direct contradiction. I didn't write the original post, so my comment is geared towards addressing that, rather than expositing my own views. In a similar way, your post is geared towards criticising mine, rather than justifying your own engagement - that's perfectly normal. But, since you asked, I hold others accountable in the same way you do now. It is because I recognised behaviour I do jot agree with and I want the person to engage with the criticisms I have made and (hopefully) change their mind. Framed this way, it is a constructive activity, not some tribunal activity as you describe. Again, if you cannot disagree with someone, you are very limited in how you can engage with them.