4 ms·

I think I more or less understand as well, but I have a pet peeve about people using the word "cowardice" for things they think are morally wrong. The classic e

I think I more or less understand as well, but I have a pet peeve about people using the word "cowardice" for things they think are morally wrong. The classic example was how everyone was calling the 9/11 bombers cowardly, when clearly their actions required a certain amount of bravery. If memory serves, Bill Maher lost his show for pointing out that fact. I think people do this because they don't feel comfortable with a purely moral condemnation, so they reach for something that is also suggests weakness, a more universally despised trait.

E14n 4y ago
The cowardice is in surrendering your moral agency "So if there was anything I was considering doing where if it became public I would be hurt, I wouldn't do it." There is a great book Bonhoeffer[1] by Eric Mataxas which deals with this and a lot of other issues 1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35493109-bonhoeffer https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35493109-bonhoeffer
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  The next sentence is: > This corresponded almost exactly with things I shouldn't have been doing anyway, so it wasn't too hard. The writer appears to be saying that there is no conflict between what he thinks is right and what the general public thinks is right. This is why I suggested naive or foolish might be better terms. I love Bonhoeffer, though!
  - jefftk 4y ago
    You're right that that's what the piece says. It's not what I would write now: there definitely are things that I think are right and most people don't. Instead of doing those things secretly, however, I do them and make a public case for them. Examples, explaining why I: * Often let my kids do things alone at ages when other people wouldn't: https://www.jefftk.com/p/whats-the-alternative-to-independence https://www.jefftk.com/p/whats-the-alternative-to-independen... * Disregard the warning on baby formula that says not to use the microwave: https://www.jefftk.com/p/stop-discouraging-microwave-formula-preparation https://www.jefftk.com/p/stop-discouraging-microwave-formula... * Work(ed) on ads: https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads
    - seti0Cha 4y ago
      Interesting, but those aren't very high stakes controversial opinions. People may strongly disagree with them, but they aren't likely to lead to a declined job offer, workplace difficulties or harassment. There are many stances for which making a public case is futile because people have strong emotional commitments around them. Would you still be public about them?
      - jefftk 4y ago
        Yes, I would still be public. I think making a case is almost never futile: I don't think I've ever encountered a topic where there weren't some people (often the quieter ones) who cared about the arguments.
    - E14n 4y ago
      It is hard to read this any other way then - you are in a privileged position of having never been personally challenged by a lack of privacy so are fine with privacy not existing. By that reasoning you are also OK with those who are effected being silenced, because they are, for example, not cisgender, white skinned and male and could face attack for random individuals for expressing their views in public. The challenging thing about reading books like Bonhoffer is that it compels you to questioning what your response would have been if placed in the same situation.
      - jefftk 4y ago
        > you are fine with privacy not existing I don't think we'll be able to prevent the disappearance of privacy as technology continues to get cheaper and more widespread. I'm not saying "this is good", I'm saying "this is coming, adapt".
        feanaro 4y ago
        We won't be able to prevent it only if we accept it. The erosion of privacy is self-imposed, so if it brings damage and people consider it important, it will stop.

E14n 4y ago

The cowardice is in surrendering your moral agency "So if there was anything I was considering doing where if it became public I would be hurt, I wouldn't do it." There is a great book Bonhoeffer[1] by Eric Mataxas which deals with this and a lot of other issues 1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35493109-bonhoeffer https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35493109-bonhoeffer

seti0Cha 4y ago
The next sentence is: > This corresponded almost exactly with things I shouldn't have been doing anyway, so it wasn't too hard. The writer appears to be saying that there is no conflict between what he thinks is right and what the general public thinks is right. This is why I suggested naive or foolish might be better terms. I love Bonhoeffer, though!
- jefftk 4y ago
  You're right that that's what the piece says. It's not what I would write now: there definitely are things that I think are right and most people don't. Instead of doing those things secretly, however, I do them and make a public case for them. Examples, explaining why I: * Often let my kids do things alone at ages when other people wouldn't: https://www.jefftk.com/p/whats-the-alternative-to-independence https://www.jefftk.com/p/whats-the-alternative-to-independen... * Disregard the warning on baby formula that says not to use the microwave: https://www.jefftk.com/p/stop-discouraging-microwave-formula-preparation https://www.jefftk.com/p/stop-discouraging-microwave-formula... * Work(ed) on ads: https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    Interesting, but those aren't very high stakes controversial opinions. People may strongly disagree with them, but they aren't likely to lead to a declined job offer, workplace difficulties or harassment. There are many stances for which making a public case is futile because people have strong emotional commitments around them. Would you still be public about them?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      Yes, I would still be public. I think making a case is almost never futile: I don't think I've ever encountered a topic where there weren't some people (often the quieter ones) who cared about the arguments.
  - E14n 4y ago
    It is hard to read this any other way then - you are in a privileged position of having never been personally challenged by a lack of privacy so are fine with privacy not existing. By that reasoning you are also OK with those who are effected being silenced, because they are, for example, not cisgender, white skinned and male and could face attack for random individuals for expressing their views in public. The challenging thing about reading books like Bonhoffer is that it compels you to questioning what your response would have been if placed in the same situation.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      > you are fine with privacy not existing I don't think we'll be able to prevent the disappearance of privacy as technology continues to get cheaper and more widespread. I'm not saying "this is good", I'm saying "this is coming, adapt".
      - feanaro 4y ago
        We won't be able to prevent it only if we accept it. The erosion of privacy is self-imposed, so if it brings damage and people consider it important, it will stop.