3 ms·

But the blindness of many internet commentators towards power relations is frankly weird. We have to make different rules depending on the power one yields: for

by aredox 3y ago

But the blindness of many internet commentators towards power relations is frankly weird. We have to make different rules depending on the power one yields: for example, transparency is a necessity against the powerful, while the rest have a right to privacy. It is as fundamental as the separation of powers in modern democracies.

PaulHoule 3y ago
Maybe it hanging out with more leftists but I am really bothered with people who seem to think that when a black man or a white man have a conflict the black man should always win or when a man and a woman have a conflict the woman should always win. I worked enough at a mediation center to know that anyone can be in the right or in the wrong. I think the first time I heard a leftist reject the categorical imperative was a friend of mine who I met when we were activists for the 2000 Ralph Nader campaign and what was one of the most active local Green parties in the US for a few years. He was teaching a course in ethics at a local college and when I asked him about "how do I make better ethical decisions?" he gave me a spiel about how the left is on the side of the angels and the right is on the side of the devils. On Mastodon I run into people like that all the time. If you confronted a rightist about, say, Pinochet's crimes, they would probably say it was justified, just look at what Lenin and Stalin did. They did it (and might even do it again) so we have to do it too. Many online leftists (like my ethicist friend) would probably say something to the extent that "it's OK that we do it but not OK when they do it" which is right up there with people who take Carol Gilligan too seriously.
- jquery 3y ago
  I've found this type of thinking across the spectrum. All I can do is ignore it and realize a lot of people are simply "morally lucky" and didn't come to their conclusions via any principled reasoning... It's easiest to spot when a new issue comes up that adds a cost to their self-professed values (eg, generative AI).

by aredox 3y ago

PaulHoule 3y ago

Maybe it hanging out with more leftists but I am really bothered with people who seem to think that when a black man or a white man have a conflict the black man should always win or when a man and a woman have a conflict the woman should always win. I worked enough at a mediation center to know that anyone can be in the right or in the wrong. I think the first time I heard a leftist reject the categorical imperative was a friend of mine who I met when we were activists for the 2000 Ralph Nader campaign and what was one of the most active local Green parties in the US for a few years. He was teaching a course in ethics at a local college and when I asked him about "how do I make better ethical decisions?" he gave me a spiel about how the left is on the side of the angels and the right is on the side of the devils. On Mastodon I run into people like that all the time. If you confronted a rightist about, say, Pinochet's crimes, they would probably say it was justified, just look at what Lenin and Stalin did. They did it (and might even do it again) so we have to do it too. Many online leftists (like my ethicist friend) would probably say something to the extent that "it's OK that we do it but not OK when they do it" which is right up there with people who take Carol Gilligan too seriously.

jquery 3y ago
I've found this type of thinking across the spectrum. All I can do is ignore it and realize a lot of people are simply "morally lucky" and didn't come to their conclusions via any principled reasoning... It's easiest to spot when a new issue comes up that adds a cost to their self-professed values (eg, generative AI).