3 ms·

How easy it is to demonize others and erode the value of individual liberty. The way that we react to people of wealth who act in ways we dislike is very telli

How easy it is to demonize others and erode the value of individual liberty. The way that we react to people of wealth who act in ways we dislike is very telling of our individual values. It's one thing to say "I don't like the culture their creating, and I want to work to build a better culture". It's one thing to say "I think they are taking unfair advantage due to their wealth and influence". But it's something else entirely to say "they deserve to be hated for who they are and how they act". It's something else to say "we demand the authority to FORCE them to act how we want, with violence if necessary". It's so, so easy to vilify the wealthy. They are "privileged", they can take it, right? They deserve something to offset their privilege and wealth, right? We've seen this script before, many times, it's not a good one, it doesn't end well. We should know better by now. If you can't maintain compassion for the wealthy, then you don't have compassion. If you can't maintain compassion for people who have different values than you then you don't have compassion. If you have a desire to use force to make people change their behavior to something more desirable to you then you don't value freedom.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  I say "we" to avoid being polarizing or exclusionary. I certainly have many advantages others don't have but others have advantages I don't have as well. I don't begrudge others their success or their differences and I try to avoid using force or violence to change the behavior of others. If I want someone to change their behavior I talk to them (assuming that said behavior is within the bounds of the law, non-violent, etc.). That's the civilized way to act, by respecting the freedoms of others and attempting to work cooperatively with others, even people we may not like. The true irony here is that there's probably no shortage of folks in these anti-google demonstration groups who have shouted something along the lines of "we don't want you here!" and then drive back home in their cars with COEXIST bumper stickers on them. It's fundamentally important that people be able to get along despite having differences and despite disliking one another. It's simply not ok to use violence or threats as a means of coercion.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 13y ago
I say "we" to avoid being polarizing or exclusionary. I certainly have many advantages others don't have but others have advantages I don't have as well. I don't begrudge others their success or their differences and I try to avoid using force or violence to change the behavior of others. If I want someone to change their behavior I talk to them (assuming that said behavior is within the bounds of the law, non-violent, etc.). That's the civilized way to act, by respecting the freedoms of others and attempting to work cooperatively with others, even people we may not like. The true irony here is that there's probably no shortage of folks in these anti-google demonstration groups who have shouted something along the lines of "we don't want you here!" and then drive back home in their cars with COEXIST bumper stickers on them. It's fundamentally important that people be able to get along despite having differences and despite disliking one another. It's simply not ok to use violence or threats as a means of coercion.