This is the waffling again. You made the pitch earlier that explicit condemnation felt hollow. Your comments here (and the many from other people saying similar things) are what look hollow to me.
When you say things like "it's easy to understand how someone arrives at that position", you're laying the groundwork to justify why what you class as "callous indifference" is just a logical and natural state that we should accept.
We shouldn't. The people who are celebrating or ok with molotov cocktails being thrown are also bad people. To borrow your language: fuck them, too.
>When you say things like "it's easy to understand how someone arrives at that position", you're laying the groundwork to justify why what you class as "callous indifference" is just a logical and natural state that we should accept.
I didn't say it should be accepted nor was I laying groundwork for justification, be it implicit or explicit.
Rather, only stating that such indifference does logically follow in those circumstances.
Quoting my prior comment:
>>Most people's perception of Sam was shaped in recent years, by press coverage that tends to treat him as the face of AI, with sentiment that usually goes something like: "hey, this guy's stealing all your water so he can take your job too, and by the way he lies a lot."
People's reaction here isn't exactly shocking when taken in that context.
That was my attempt at rephrasing a sentence to be more clear in response to an accusation of waffling, I think.
Suffice it to say, point-by-point rebuttal exchanges/slap fights tend to not lead anywhere good, let alone in a comment section that's emotionally charged and personal from the outset.
In retrospect, I should've just left my original comment stand by itself rather than panic and dive into a detailed follow-on explanation which snowballed from there.
I was genuinely trying to post in good faith for positive effect while taking a middle tack that still condemned violence while perhaps humanizing some of the anger.
It didn't quite work out, but I do very much understand where the opposing positions were coming from now.
And, my apologies for swearing.
---
You brought up a dynamic in the second incident's discussion touching on essentially redundant condemnation, where normal people don't bother because it's universally assumed that violence is bad.
Having closely watched the comment section unfold there, I see what you meant by that: it ends up being negative space for what you termed countervailing sentiment to expand within.
I think that was actually the first time I was happy to see a thread taken off the main page early, for everyone's sake.
This feels like a pointless semantic trap. Everything is "waffling" or "wiggling". I don't see the parent saying anything in a disguised manner. It's just that reality is complicated. In the immediate wake of violence, it's exceedingly easy to paint any sentiment aside from "this is horrible" as disrespectful or weasel-worded. That's cheap (as I mentioned elsewhere, it's like the way conservatives refuse to talk about guns in the wake of gun violence).
When you say things like "it's easy to understand how someone arrives at that position", you're laying the groundwork to justify why what you class as "callous indifference" is just a logical and natural state that we should accept.
We shouldn't. The people who are celebrating or ok with molotov cocktails being thrown are also bad people. To borrow your language: fuck them, too.