5 ms·
> You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values We all have a strong mo
by lkrubner 4y ago
> You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values
We all have a strong moral obligation to root out "reprehensible people with the wrong values." If you think otherwise then you don't understand what the word "reprehensible" means.
- sneak 4y agoFundamental attribution error. There are no reprehensible people, there are only reprehensible deeds.
- lkrubner 4y agoI envy your innocence, but sadly, the world has many reprehensible people in it.
- mqnfred 4y agoThere are indeed people who repeatedly perform reprehensible deeds.
- Slava_Propanei 4y ago
- pessimizer 4y agoThat's an excuse to dehumanize people. Labeling people rather than deeds is simply an announcement that you're willing to compromise your own ethics in order to attack that person. It's what's really happening when we label people as terrorists.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pharrington 4y agoDo you believe terrorists exist? If no, would you say that Osama Bin Laden was not a terrorist?
- orestarod 4y agoAre Palestinians terrorists?
- lkrubner 4y agoAs pharrington points out, your words imply that you agree with me that terrorists are reprehensible people, or you are trying to argue that terrorists don't actually exist. Which is it?
- pharrington 4y agoWould you call someone who's primary goal is to due good deeds a "good person"? Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due reprehensible deeds a "reprehensible person"? People certainly can change over time, but someone's state at a given time is what that person actually is at the time.
- naniwaduni 4y agoI wouldn't think either of those people exist, from anyone else's perspective.
- montefischer 4y agoAfter you root out these reprehensible people, what do you suggest doing with them?
- lkrubner 4y agoShame them for their bad behavior.
- trention 4y agoIt's not about shaming anyone since most of the people targeted don't give a crap about the opinions of the wokes and the woke-adjacent. Right now the target is to deprive them of employment. You can at the very least be honest about it.
- Slava_Propanei 4y agoShaming people for defending themselves is not going to change their minds
- seti0Cha 4y agoThat only works when you have mob behind you. What will you do when you find yourself disagreeing with the majority and they apply this technique to you?
- lkrubner 4y agoShame them for their bad behavior. It does not matter how many of them there are. It does not matter if I am the only person in the world who knows what right behavior is, I still must follow my conscience.
- seti0Cha 4y agoThat's not how shaming works. If you try to shame someone who doesn't think they've done anything wrong, which will be case in this hypothetical scenario, they will not feel shame. They'll just think you are wrong. If a mob of people engages in public shaming, you probably still won't make that person feel shame, but you can cause them to feel humiliated and isolated and so likely silence them, along with others who might have otherwise agreed with them publicly. Shaming is a way of silencing people who disagree with you and that only works if you do it as a mob. Otherwise you're just making yourself feel good by expressing your disapproval. Mob shaming at least accomplishes something, individual shaming is just a lazy substitute for persuasion.
- Slava_Propanei 4y agoI think we have a strong moral obligation to root out reprehensible people with the power and desire to censor speech.