I'm not going to litigate every example, suffice to say I don't think that's a fair characterization of any of those, except for 4. And in that case, you don't find it outrageous that a family's livelihood was destroyed, along with that of all of their employees for what is essentially some teenage edgelord posturing? You find that to be a perfectly fine and fair thing to happen? Nothing to be outraged about?
1. Whatever it is, it’s not depriving dozens of people of a livelihood.
2. I’m a thinking person with the capacity to form opinions and am as entitled as anyone to decide what I consider appropriate? What sort of answer are you looking for here? I’m saying what I think and giving reasons why, instead of refuting those reasons your response is to assert that I’m not allowed to think about certain things? What gives you the right to determine what people are allowed to have opinions about?
Actions have consequences in society, and public actions moreso. That's part of the cost of being in one. I don't think it's particularly outrageous to expect that people who say and do hurtful things, either intentionally or out of ignorance, should pay consequences.
> What gives you the right to determine what people are allowed to have opinions about?
What indeed? It seems on one hand you're expressing outrage against other people's expression of their own opinion, while preventing yourself from similar scrutiny. You can't have it both ways.
I appreciate this conversation, for what it's worth. It's echoed one that I've had to myself for a while. At the end of the day, I think we mainly disagree on whether or not these are proportional responses to the level of harm caused. Personally, I think the vast majority of these dozens are either justified, or they're outliers.
Literally everything is a consequence. If you cut someone off in traffic, one consequence might be that they hunt you down and kill you. If you pass counterfeit money in a convenience store and then fight with the cops, one consequence might be that you get choked to death while being restrained. Hey! It’s just consequences! What’s the problem? People who do something wrong should pay consequences, right?
Just because something is a consequence doesn’t mean that it’s good or appropriate or that it creates a successful and thriving society if we allow that particular consequence for that particular infraction.
Yes, we definitely disagree on what is an appropriate response. If you think that someone being ignorant or momentarily insensitive means they should be destitute for the rest of their life, then, yes, I very much disagree.
> It seems on one hand you're expressing outrage against other people's expression of their own opinion, while preventing yourself from similar scrutiny. You can't have it both ways.
Getting someone fired or starting a public campaign to destroy their business is not “expressing an opinion”. And how exactly am I preventing myself from similar scrutiny? I’m literally posting on a public forum where anyone is free to respond directly to me. That is the exact opposite of preventing scrutiny.
> I don't think it's particularly outrageous to expect that people who say and do hurtful things, either intentionally or out of ignorance, should pay consequences.
I think that it outrageous that you not only completely neglect the motivation and give a pass to anyone that feels hurt. It isn't hard to see the problem of course, not only in cases of miscommunication or any kind of conflict. This would cause problems, solve nothing and would immediately create toxic relations.
With your quick acceptance of condemnation, you are just helping real racists.
You have a low threshold for outrage, then. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm making quick judgments or somehow neglecting people's motivations, but all I can say is that you're wrong.
And who exactly is going to determine who the "real racists" are, exactly? Why does everything have to exist in black or white where there are "real racists" and everyone else. Does that give someone a free pass to be ignorant, because they meant well? Sorry, no.
I think it would be much more reasonable to have conversations about the _degree_ of punishment that occurs when people make mistakes. But instead I have to argue with folks like you who want to pretend like an offense never happened. That's not productive, and frankly it'll be a further waste of my time to continue this.
