4 ms·
Of course understanding is a good first step. However the onus is I think on the antisocial one to explain themselves. Of course I did ask exactly what you sugg
by tempfile 1mo ago
Of course understanding is a good first step. However the onus is I think on the antisocial one to explain themselves. Of course I did ask exactly what you suggested, and they didn't reply. So maybe just stopping them without understanding would be ok in this case.
- kelseyfrog 1mo agoI think the onus is on the one who wants to enact change, but I'm curious how you came to prefer sorting it by sociability.
- tempfile 1mo ago"the one who wants to enact change" is not really meaningful. They want to change the working bus stop into a smashed bus stop. I want to change the people who smash bus stops into people who don't smash bus stops. I don't think the abstract framing is helping you to think about it (or helping me to understand you). My feeling about this is very simple. I think the position "I want to smash up public infrastructure to impress my sexual partners" is destructive and immoral. I don't see any reason we should allow it to happen. If someone wants to do that, I think we should punish them. I am not sympathetic to that position at all. Why do you think I should be? That's all I'm asking.