4 ms·

Their protest was very effective given the existence of this discussion here and across the web. Despite what those who claim politics can or should be kept ou

Their protest was very effective given the existence of this discussion here and across the web. Despite what those who claim politics can or should be kept out of work want to claim. For those who claim the protester was an idiot, consider their goal wasnt keeping their job and instead living their values. That doesn't make them an idiot.

homefree 3y ago
[flagged]
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago
  > shouting down people you disagree with is wrong and illiberal and should not be tolerated in a healthy society (or company), independent of the particulars of the belief itself. You wouldnt have even shouted at people spitting on black protestors eating in whites only diners? In such a world where shouting people down you disagree with is forbidden you are forever stuck with the status quo.
  - homefree 3y ago
    The other more effective, more liberal option is persuasion. This is something MLK understood.
    - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
      You know MLK was at the diner sit-in im referring to right? He doesn't meet your definition of liberal. Furthermore he directly speaks against your liberal option: > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
      - homefree 3y ago
        Progressives love to quote that one letter, but it's an outlier from the more universalist principles he repeatedly said in everything else he wrote and spoke (though people are complicated and can simultaneously hold conflicting views or change their views over time). Non-violent civil disobedience can obviously be good (Rosa Parks, protest walks, etc.), but when it becomes shouting down others so they can't speak it's crossed into something illiberal and bad. The ability for people who deeply disagree to speak and engage in a high level of discourse is how classical liberalism works. Often people hold deeply held beliefs, and often those beliefs are wrong - if persuasion is not on the table you don't improve your society - you just descend into political violence. Talking to people you deeply disagree with (we're doing that now!) is a virtuous thing and it's something MLK did repeatedly with universalist principles that harkened back to the founding fathers and the rights shared by every individual, it's something both MLK and the founding fathers understood.
        lostmsu 3y ago
        > in everything else he wrote and spoke Can you quote anything that would directly contradict the above quote?
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago
  > It can make them an idiot if their values are as morally confused as they are in this case. How can you confidently assert they are morally confused?
  - homefree 3y ago
    This is a longer conversation not fit for HN. The very quick response is 10/7 was a brutal massacre of civilians - the goal being to torture, rape, and kill regular people including and especially women and children (of which many are still held hostage). This is going to have a military response independent of any country (imagine Mexico doing this across the border to a town in Texas). Civilians will die in war despite best efforts, but war is sometimes necessary and justified, especially when dealing with ideas of jihad not compatible with western society. The response celebrating 10/7 in a lot of the western progressive circles on 10/8 was before Israel had even organized a response. The history here is complicated, and people can have different views - but whatever your views there, this kind of intentional targeting of civilians is not justifiable. There’s a distinction between civilians killed in war despite best efforts to avoid non-combatant deaths and specifically targeting civilians to torture and kill. The moral confusion comes from not understanding that or drawing a false equivalence. Hamas also understands Israel has a higher moral standard and does not want to kill civilians - it’s why they use hospitals and schools as bases and to store arms. If Hamas laid down their arms there would be peace, if Israel did the same we saw on 10/7 what would happen. Some ideas require total military defeat. It was necessary in WWII and we now live in peace with those countries The focus on the response when the aggressors have not even released all of the hostages is a clear example of this confusion too.
    - skulk 3y ago
      The phrase "best-efforts to avoid non-combatant deaths" is _extremely_ load-bearing in your post. Israel is locked into a multigenerational existential conflict with people who utterly hate their guts for just existing. Similar feelings have developed on their side. Claiming that Israel cares about not killing Palestinian civilians is utterly laughable, especially given the news.

homefree 3y ago

[flagged]

ParetoOptimal 3y ago
> shouting down people you disagree with is wrong and illiberal and should not be tolerated in a healthy society (or company), independent of the particulars of the belief itself. You wouldnt have even shouted at people spitting on black protestors eating in whites only diners? In such a world where shouting people down you disagree with is forbidden you are forever stuck with the status quo.
- homefree 3y ago
  The other more effective, more liberal option is persuasion. This is something MLK understood.
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    You know MLK was at the diner sit-in im referring to right? He doesn't meet your definition of liberal. Furthermore he directly speaks against your liberal option: > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
    - homefree 3y ago
      Progressives love to quote that one letter, but it's an outlier from the more universalist principles he repeatedly said in everything else he wrote and spoke (though people are complicated and can simultaneously hold conflicting views or change their views over time). Non-violent civil disobedience can obviously be good (Rosa Parks, protest walks, etc.), but when it becomes shouting down others so they can't speak it's crossed into something illiberal and bad. The ability for people who deeply disagree to speak and engage in a high level of discourse is how classical liberalism works. Often people hold deeply held beliefs, and often those beliefs are wrong - if persuasion is not on the table you don't improve your society - you just descend into political violence. Talking to people you deeply disagree with (we're doing that now!) is a virtuous thing and it's something MLK did repeatedly with universalist principles that harkened back to the founding fathers and the rights shared by every individual, it's something both MLK and the founding fathers understood.
      - lostmsu 3y ago
        > in everything else he wrote and spoke Can you quote anything that would directly contradict the above quote?
ParetoOptimal 3y ago
> It can make them an idiot if their values are as morally confused as they are in this case. How can you confidently assert they are morally confused?
- homefree 3y ago
  This is a longer conversation not fit for HN. The very quick response is 10/7 was a brutal massacre of civilians - the goal being to torture, rape, and kill regular people including and especially women and children (of which many are still held hostage). This is going to have a military response independent of any country (imagine Mexico doing this across the border to a town in Texas). Civilians will die in war despite best efforts, but war is sometimes necessary and justified, especially when dealing with ideas of jihad not compatible with western society. The response celebrating 10/7 in a lot of the western progressive circles on 10/8 was before Israel had even organized a response. The history here is complicated, and people can have different views - but whatever your views there, this kind of intentional targeting of civilians is not justifiable. There’s a distinction between civilians killed in war despite best efforts to avoid non-combatant deaths and specifically targeting civilians to torture and kill. The moral confusion comes from not understanding that or drawing a false equivalence. Hamas also understands Israel has a higher moral standard and does not want to kill civilians - it’s why they use hospitals and schools as bases and to store arms. If Hamas laid down their arms there would be peace, if Israel did the same we saw on 10/7 what would happen. Some ideas require total military defeat. It was necessary in WWII and we now live in peace with those countries The focus on the response when the aggressors have not even released all of the hostages is a clear example of this confusion too.
  - skulk 3y ago
    The phrase "best-efforts to avoid non-combatant deaths" is _extremely_ load-bearing in your post. Israel is locked into a multigenerational existential conflict with people who utterly hate their guts for just existing. Similar feelings have developed on their side. Claiming that Israel cares about not killing Palestinian civilians is utterly laughable, especially given the news.