3 ms·

> wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. I don’t know if I would describe this as power as opp

> wielding power generally means giving someone something and that implies not giving it to someone else. I don’t know if I would describe this as power as opposed to Economics? And when we talk about something like economics (the systems by which resources are allocated) I think we are at a level of organization that transcends individuals in the way that bulk materials transcend individual atoms or electrons. Using your example, you can pay your child’s tuition, but you simply operating with a system you have no real control over. You as an individual are powerless to determine tuition rates, or that there is a financial component in the allocation of seats in the school in the first place. What I am talking about is individuals who abuse systems to hurt other people. Like the person who willfully misinterprets something you said, or makes up a rumor about you to turn others against you or justify beating you up.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
rather than worry about the specific example, try to understand the overarching point. If I have three cats and 2 hands, 1 of them is naturally not going to get pets. I'm wielding power in the form of that decision, not because I'm egomaniacal and love leaving the 3rd cat out of pets, but because I've chosen to employ both hands to pet two cats. People chase power. The woke movement is 1 mechanism for doing so (there are others). It doesn't mean all those chasing power using the woke movement are specifically doing it to bully others. And while YOU may want to limit to bullies, you responded to a post talking about the woke movement in general, my point stays within that context even if you've chosen to go outside that context.
- pfisherman 4y ago
  I think you are conflating two concepts 1. Justice - that which each of us is owed 2. Fortitude - the ability to carry out one’s will Those are two entirely separate things. And it is entirely possible to have one without the other. You may decide one cat deserves all the pets, but he / she may have different ideas and decide to run off and go bat at a fly. This you were the arbiter of justice, but had no power. Social justice movements are generally concerned with justice. The question of what is fair. Power generally rests in the hands of the state / mob / body politic. Laws mean nothing without some mechanism of enforcement. Now what the OP article is saying is that malevolent people will often try to abuse social norms to protect themselves from the consequences of their malevolent behaviors. My reply to OP is saying that this is a very human trait and not specific to any particular social movement or social norm. As evidence I give a couple of similar examples that happen in different socio-political contexts.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    And if I seriously respond to you, you'll escalate once again to something else in an effort to avoid giving up the point. But the point remains, there are people doing this because they seek power because power seeking behavior is human behavior. It is possible to exhibit power without being a bully, and no amount of hair splitting wrt to words is going to change my point.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

rather than worry about the specific example, try to understand the overarching point. If I have three cats and 2 hands, 1 of them is naturally not going to get pets. I'm wielding power in the form of that decision, not because I'm egomaniacal and love leaving the 3rd cat out of pets, but because I've chosen to employ both hands to pet two cats. People chase power. The woke movement is 1 mechanism for doing so (there are others). It doesn't mean all those chasing power using the woke movement are specifically doing it to bully others. And while YOU may want to limit to bullies, you responded to a post talking about the woke movement in general, my point stays within that context even if you've chosen to go outside that context.

pfisherman 4y ago
I think you are conflating two concepts 1. Justice - that which each of us is owed 2. Fortitude - the ability to carry out one’s will Those are two entirely separate things. And it is entirely possible to have one without the other. You may decide one cat deserves all the pets, but he / she may have different ideas and decide to run off and go bat at a fly. This you were the arbiter of justice, but had no power. Social justice movements are generally concerned with justice. The question of what is fair. Power generally rests in the hands of the state / mob / body politic. Laws mean nothing without some mechanism of enforcement. Now what the OP article is saying is that malevolent people will often try to abuse social norms to protect themselves from the consequences of their malevolent behaviors. My reply to OP is saying that this is a very human trait and not specific to any particular social movement or social norm. As evidence I give a couple of similar examples that happen in different socio-political contexts.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  And if I seriously respond to you, you'll escalate once again to something else in an effort to avoid giving up the point. But the point remains, there are people doing this because they seek power because power seeking behavior is human behavior. It is possible to exhibit power without being a bully, and no amount of hair splitting wrt to words is going to change my point.