3 ms·
Would you feel the same way if Wikimedia funded groups acting against social justice?
by zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Would you feel the same way if Wikimedia funded groups acting against social justice?
- antihero 4y agoNo because there’s a difference between doing good and doing bad, even if that’s subjective.
- ars 4y agoYou didn't think that through, did you? It's almost impossible to define good vs bad without it being subjective. You killed someone. That's bad. Except they were dying of a terminal disease, so now it's good. Except you still killed someone, so that's bad.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 988747 4y ago"Social justice" is the opposite of justice, and therefore evil :)
- pessimizer 4y agoThere is. Bad is doing what you want, good is doing what I want.
- Spivak 4y agoDepends, is the funding literally just for “fuck these people in particular who have social justice missions” or do you really mean “donating to groups whose missions I don’t agree with and who in due course end up opposing social justice groups.” Because the former is just mean while the latter is fine.
- subradios 4y agoThat depends , if they took a principled position that, say trans rights groups were censoring notable science re: gender and sexuality and donated to FIRE - an organization that is specifically devoted to maintaining the academy as a place of inquiry, but incidentally opposes social justice missions, that seems like it could be in keeping with Wikipedia's wider mission and legitimate. However, I'd feel like sponsoring the Ben Shapiro superpac would be obviously over the line - not because they're "conservative" or "against social justice", but because the way in which it opposes "social justice" is not an incidental aspect of protecting freedom of information. Similarly, funding the pre-2015 ACLU could have a similar argument made - even though they had a liberal bent well before the Harvard amicus brief.