Fear of ostracism for their beliefs, now that puts enough fear in them to drive them under.
Then they have nothing to fear, since we live in an age where Streisand effect is a thing. Whoever you try to destroy just becomes a martyr, and the nature of the Internet makes it practically possible for you to hide the news of them becoming a martyr.
And yet, they fear it. That much is plain to see from their writings. And you have to wonder: why are they afraid, in the age of the Streisand Effect?
It turns out, you see, that the Streisand Effect only applies to censoring content. Ostracizing people works just fine. And they know this, so they are afraid.
The fact even you talk about incels now shows it won't work. People didn't care much for them before, but after a few of them went crazy, it's part of your list of acceptable targets. Put it another way: every time you bring them up, you're doing the exact opposite of ignoring and ostracizing them.
I think you misunderstand my goal. I didn't say to ignore them. I never would, because ignoring them is what got us into this mess. Cast them out, yes; avoid them, yes. Ignore them? Never. Incels, like other kinds of bullies, cannot be ignored. They can only be dealt with.
Oh I see you used your typical "everybody that doesn't agree with me is a nazi incel!!"
Oh, no, not everybody by any stretch of the imagination. Some of them are SJWs, and some are even moderates. If I really went all-out with the full spectrum of my beliefs, I'd probably draw a much wider spectrum of opposition. But there's only one group worth targeting, so there's only one group that I target.
And you don't even see why people think you're a moron.
No, I think I have a pretty good handle on why people think I'm a moron. It differs with the camp they come from. Yet, as I brought up last time, most of those camps still seem to find me fairly useful to have around. Why? Because I am pointed at you. Nobody wants you around, and so I am tolerated.
I love how last time you only said it because you were "trolling" yet I read it from you every day damn near.
I am not the kind of troll that makes shiat up. I mean, it is a kind of trolling, but I am sincere. Best of both worlds, really.
People like you are why tensions are as high as they are today.
I'm not the one marching for genocide and shooting up newspapers because their honest reporting on a newsworthy story made it hard to get a date. The way you are treated is all your fault. The libs' hands aren't clean -they paint their opposition with far too broad a brush, and the collateral damage of this is extremely high. I understand this as well as any other conservative does; I've been hiy by more than enough. But the kind of shit you pull makes you a fair target. You're no ally of mine.
What are you going to do, demand that I be fired for not being a Nazi? Complain that I create a hostile work environment by not being an incel? Do you really think anyone will care?
Sure, legally protecting the unmask-and-ostracize crowd entails some risk to that crowd. But that's a risk that can be managed, mostly by just being a decent and mature person. Don't drag shit down unnecessarily. Don't ruin things for people, for your own amusement or any other reason. When you do -and we all do, from time to time- make sincere apologies and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Treat people with common human decency. In other words, just grow the fuck up.
That's all you need. It's all you've ever needed. This is what people were trying to tell you, back when you were supposed to be developing as a person.
Honestly, the incels and Nazis have had decades to prove that legally forbidding hate speech is not sufficient deterrent anyway. They just don't fear it enough.
Fear of ostracism for their beliefs, now that puts enough fear in them to drive them under. Give legal protection to the unmask-and-ostracize folks if you really want to stop all this.
When you drag shit down and ruin things for everyone, you wind up hurting the company more than the value your work provides, and people stop wanting you around. You are not a bunny-ears lawyer. The very few in existence are either learning to grow up or get kicked to the curb they always belonged. You'll be a lot happier if you learn too.
Not really. It's just a reassertion of the reasonable-doubt standard. When you're no longer fooling anybody, that's enough. When the arguments against the charges are clear bullshit, they hold no value. Essentially, this is removing the veils that abusers and rapists hide behind to escape the consequences of their actions despite there being no reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
(If you want more proof of that, consider that they're hailing decisions like Google's to allow these cases to be settled in court. Shouldn't #MeToo be against that, if the idea is to end-run the reasonable-doubt standard? Private arbitration is much friendlier to end-running reasonable doubt, yet #MeToo runs toward the concept, not away from it.
You could never hurt me. Be it mentally or physically.
You do realize that's basically the biggest tell for being hurt, right?
While at the same time you try to intimidate weaker people as you failed to do in the post above.
Hold on; now you've gone on to admitting that not only am I hurting you, but I'm stronger than you?
Imagine that. And imagine these, while you're at it: how should I feel about this? And how should you feel when you do the same things to people weaker than you?
People like you aren't worth the air that you breathe. I'm a rather good judge of character, prison does that.
Blah blah blah Navy Seal yada yada 130 confirmed kills etc. etc. gorilla warfare [REDACTED]king end you.
See how easy that is?
Besides, I submit your palling around with and knowingly acting as enabler to incels and Nazis as evidence that you aren't actually a very good judge of character at all. Especially for someone who claims to have been in prison.
From the few posts of yours I have read in this thread... You seem like a two faced "friend when you're around" type person.
Because I don't acquiesce in the face of abuse from you and your buds? That's not loyalty, that's Stockholm syndrome.
Hold on; did you just admit that I'm hurting you? Imagine that. And while you're at it, here's some more food for thought: how do you think other people feel when you do these very same things to them?
See, it's not quite how you're phrasing it. This is "do as I say, not as you". I merely provide a reflection of what you do in a way you would understand.
These are all attacks on a person, and what you wrote, very certainly is bullying.
Yes. Yes, it is. I've been open this entire time about the fact that what I'm doing here crosses the line.
It is not life, and it is not society. Giving the silent treatment is also a form of bullying, as is excommunication. Silent treatment is different from collective avoidance, which is similar to excommunication.
People not wanting you around is not bullying. You are not entitled to popularity.
Want to know another secret? There was a time when I wasn't so different from you. Not completely the same, but you'd have recognized me as being on the path to becoming one of you. And people didn't want me around, because I was a little shit, and I thought that was bullying. And the hell of it is, I actually did experience a couple years of the real thing. Then I got moved into another school with a strong antibullying program, still didn't get popular, and thought the bullying had started up again (qualitatively different -even I wasn't so blind as to not see a difference- but I still thought I was being bullied when I was not). And then it happened again at yet another school with another strong antibullying program.
But I said "eleven years", which naturally leads to a question: what happened to the twelfth? Well, someone finally got through to me. This was extremely unpleasant; traumatic, even, but that is why it worked. And when I finally understood that I and I alone needed to change, and started making those changes, things finally began to improve. The isolated bullying incidents stopped within days. The ostracism cleared up within a month or so: I was never a social butterfly, but there's a noticeable difference between when people actively don't want you around and when they consider you an okay guy.
So yeah. I got out. And now I reach back, to help pull others out. The ones who are well and truly being treated unfairly can be helped along with far nicer methods than this; I already know that. Even some of the fair targets can, depending on where exactly the actions they're being targeted for come from. But some of you are tougher to crack, and so another approach is needed.
While silent treatment, collective avoidance, and excommunication are not illegal, they are not always ethical, and must thus be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
True as far as it goes. Even ostracism can be applied to inappropriate targets. That just isn't what happened to you. I've seen enough of your case to evaluate it.
A person who wrote what you wrote, Millennium (user #2451), should be avoided as much as possible.
Is that supposed to be power words?
I pity the people who are forced to be in such a person's circle without any recourse.
I don't hide behind an anonymous account. No one is forced to be in my circle. If people really didn't want me around, they could ban me or warn me or evem just downvote me into oblivion, and I would go away.
Yet they don't. Not on this site, and not anywhere else. Why not? It's not like I don't give them ample reason to: as I said before, I openly cross the line. There is no code of conduct or terms of service that condones what I do. Yet not only am I tolerated, people even seem to kind of like me.
And you've got to ask yourself: why is that? This is the site that gave us the infamous "Voices from the Hellmouth": perhaps not the greatest of articles on the subject, but nevertheless indicative of this place's general attitude. Shouldn't what I do be held in contempt? Yet it isn't, and that's a curious phenomenon, all right. Why would I be tolerated? My hypothesis is that I am tolerated because of my targets. The geek community has long been noted for radical inclusivity, but we picked up some people we shouldn't have, and they drove many others away. Now that mistake is being corrected.
It's modded down for being an obvious troll. My own response to it was modded Troll too, and this is fair: I really was trying to make a constructive argument, but I admit that I chose deliberately trollish wording as part of illustrating that point.
Protesting fair moderations is not looked on kindly by the staff. I suggest you stop.
You're right that the libs have a severe problem when it comes to actually following the principles with which they inculcated a generation. But I am no liberal to claim that there is no one true path: false paths exist, and yours is the falsest. I'm not going to sit and preach that all viewpoints are equally valid: yours is merely the most invalid of all. The libs taught us all that no one deserves to be bullied, but they also taught us to that bullying and ostracism were the same thing, and this is not so: they are not, and some people do deserve to be ostracized, and you are among them.
No, I'm not a liberal. I am the parents and grandparents you disappoint on a daily basis. I am the traditions you pay lip service to the idea of upholding, but can't be bothered to actually put in any effort to uphold. I'm the duties you tell yourself you can't perform because that is easier than performing them. I am the people the libs replaced, protesting even back then that they were going to unseal people like you, and they didn't believe, but lo and behold, here you are. I am the people who kept your cage shut from the inside, and I now I am the people who will push you back in and lock ourselves in with you, just to make sure that you never, ever get out again. Because letting you run wild isn't worth any political goal.
Well, actually, female incels exist. The term was in fact coined by a woman, describing her own condition. She had a disability which physically prevented her from having sex, but still had a functioning libido, and she founded a community of people in similar circumstances. The term is gender-neutral. Kind of tough to be sexist when you don't specify a sex.
Why are people claiming to be against hate, sexism, and exclusion so often filled with hate, sexism, and excluding others?
You leave us little choice. Nothing else has convinced you to grow up, so we are down to this.
Either politeness works and we all ought to be or it doesn't.
It doesn't work. You're the proof of that. So the rest of us continue being polite to one another while showing you the other side of what you do.
Not so much fun, is it? My question is, what makes you think other people feel any different when you do it to them? This is what happens when you become what you hate.
It is when you label a certain group you dislike "assholes" or "creeps," and say "we don't want your kind around here!"
Ah, see, here's the problem: you're still assuming that the labels of "asshole" and "creepy" refer to a person's essence -innate, immutable qualities- rather than a person's status, which is changeable. To some extent the English language isn't especially helpful here, since we have only the single verb "to be" for expressing both.
One thing we are seeing with this movement is a tendency to draw sharp lines and judge people often on a single interaction in the distant past,
Except that this isn't actually the case. A single interaction is often enough to start an inquiry over, yes, and this is as it should be. Inevitably, more interactions come up, sometimes past, sometimes present, providing yet more windows into the person's underlying status. A single bad interaction is easy enough to overcome, except in the most egregious cases, if other interactions show that the person has changed. But this isn't usually what happens: you get more glimpses into a person's character, and it turns out thar they haven't changed at all, and this is where the judgment begins.
immediately making them pariahs despite any good they may have done since then, and ignoring any similar behaviors we may have committed ourselves once upon a time.
Karma is not a ledgerbook; you cannot "balance" bad deeds with good ones. That's not how atonement works. What people are looking for is actual change. If you've got some useful stuff under your belt but you're still the same asshole you always were, you're nothing but the asshole you always were. A creep who sometimes does good deeds is nothing but a creep. If you want out of the judgment, you can't just say some prescribed number of Hail Marys, or even "do better": as long as that's your attitude, nothing will ever be enough. You have to be better, and let whatever good you do come as a result of that change. Only then are people ever going to decide to forgive you, and even then some of them might not, and that's okay too. The whole point of forgiveness is that you are not entitled to it.
It isn't bullying to not want someone around because they're an asshole or a creep. Going out of your way to torment soneone, that's bullying, and yes, what I do does, in fact, cross that line.
But I wonder: how much of what you faced growing up was actually people going out of their way to torment you? Some, no doubt: even people who were mostly fairly ostracized still usually experience sone bullying, because as a society we really suck at teaching people the difference. But if you're like most of your kind, I very much doubt you faced any significant amount of it for most of your school years. Most of it was just people avoiding you, trying to stay away: they didn't want you around because you were a little shit, but they were perfectly content to leave you alone as long as you let them.
But you didn't let them. You couldn't. You thought people not wanting you around was bullying, because you thought you were somehow entitled to popularity. Think back. Think hard. You know it's true, at least for most of it, am I right? Maybe there was one school where things got worse, or even two, and you really did face a couple of years of legit bullying then. You even noticed it was different somehow, but wrote it off as just another kind of bullying, but really, it was the only actual bullying you ever faced. The other "bullying" was people simply not wanting to be around you and leaving you alone, and that, I'm afraid, was all your fault.
And that's what the unmask-and-ostracize folks are after. People who know you for what you are stay away from you, because you're creepy. That isn't bullying. That's just society. Actions have consequences, and you know this, because that's why you hide. You know you deserve it. You just don't want to change. Which is your prerogative, I suppose, but if you don't change, then no one else needs to either.
Ah, see, that's where you've gotten things a bit mixed up. I am not a left-winger; in fact, the ones I've talked to are generally only slightly less appalled by the things I say than you are. They aren't as compassionate as they like to think they are, but even they usually think I'm too hard on your fee fees.
Literally nobody anywhere used the "echoes" parentheses before the Nazis did. And the few decent people who picked them up from the Nazis unknowingly reacted with horror when they realized they'd essentially been doing random Nazi-saluting in public without realizing it, and stopped. Because that's what a decent person does: you leave stuff the Nazis have ruined to the Nazis, so that the unmask-and-ostracize folks have the tools they need to do the unmasking part.
Actually, no I don't. I'm pro-life- *CONSISTENT* pro-life. And my views have evolved since I chose this handle. I certainly would not want anybody "culled".
The Consistent Life Ethic, I've heard it called. Good for you. But it wasn't your views I was questioning. I believe you when you say you don't want anyone culled; it's your pals I'm less sure of. You're being used as a shield by people who very much do want to cull people like your son, and as near as I can tell, you seem perfectly okay with that.
In fact, in keeping with everything else I said- I want people to breed. Maximum genetic diversity is good for the species, because what we determine to be "defective" is flawed.
Your friends would say otherwise. Indeed, this is dangerous talk for someone like you, because it's the kind of thing that gets you labeled a traitor by people like them. I do not like your compatriots very much. Why do you?
Of course, my son's "accomplishments" are things like actually finally getting rid of pullups at age 15......
And if that's the time he needed, good for him. I had a relative who came to a similar accomplishment much later in life. But seriously, you've allied yourself with people who do not recognize these things the way you and I do, and they aren't going to be happy to see you talking like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Fear of ostracism for their beliefs, now that puts enough fear in them to drive them under.
Then they have nothing to fear, since we live in an age where Streisand effect is a thing. Whoever you try to destroy just becomes a martyr, and the nature of the Internet makes it practically possible for you to hide the news of them becoming a martyr.
And yet, they fear it. That much is plain to see from their writings. And you have to wonder: why are they afraid, in the age of the Streisand Effect?
It turns out, you see, that the Streisand Effect only applies to censoring content. Ostracizing people works just fine. And they know this, so they are afraid.
The fact even you talk about incels now shows it won't work. People didn't care much for them before, but after a few of them went crazy, it's part of your list of acceptable targets. Put it another way: every time you bring them up, you're doing the exact opposite of ignoring and ostracizing them.
I think you misunderstand my goal. I didn't say to ignore them. I never would, because ignoring them is what got us into this mess. Cast them out, yes; avoid them, yes. Ignore them? Never. Incels, like other kinds of bullies, cannot be ignored. They can only be dealt with.
Oh I see you used your typical "everybody that doesn't agree with me is a nazi incel!!"
Oh, no, not everybody by any stretch of the imagination. Some of them are SJWs, and some are even moderates. If I really went all-out with the full spectrum of my beliefs, I'd probably draw a much wider spectrum of opposition. But there's only one group worth targeting, so there's only one group that I target.
And you don't even see why people think you're a moron.
No, I think I have a pretty good handle on why people think I'm a moron. It differs with the camp they come from. Yet, as I brought up last time, most of those camps still seem to find me fairly useful to have around. Why? Because I am pointed at you. Nobody wants you around, and so I am tolerated.
I love how last time you only said it because you were "trolling" yet I read it from you every day damn near.
I am not the kind of troll that makes shiat up. I mean, it is a kind of trolling, but I am sincere. Best of both worlds, really.
People like you are why tensions are as high as they are today.
I'm not the one marching for genocide and shooting up newspapers because their honest reporting on a newsworthy story made it hard to get a date. The way you are treated is all your fault. The libs' hands aren't clean -they paint their opposition with far too broad a brush, and the collateral damage of this is extremely high. I understand this as well as any other conservative does; I've been hiy by more than enough. But the kind of shit you pull makes you a fair target. You're no ally of mine.
What are you going to do, demand that I be fired for not being a Nazi? Complain that I create a hostile work environment by not being an incel? Do you really think anyone will care?
Sure, legally protecting the unmask-and-ostracize crowd entails some risk to that crowd. But that's a risk that can be managed, mostly by just being a decent and mature person. Don't drag shit down unnecessarily. Don't ruin things for people, for your own amusement or any other reason. When you do -and we all do, from time to time- make sincere apologies and take steps to prevent it from happening again. Treat people with common human decency. In other words, just grow the fuck up.
That's all you need. It's all you've ever needed. This is what people were trying to tell you, back when you were supposed to be developing as a person.
HTTP/2 shouldn't have bundled in TLS, and HTTP/3 shouldn't bundle in UDP. Keep the layers separate; interoperability depends on it.
Honestly, the incels and Nazis have had decades to prove that legally forbidding hate speech is not sufficient deterrent anyway. They just don't fear it enough.
Fear of ostracism for their beliefs, now that puts enough fear in them to drive them under. Give legal protection to the unmask-and-ostracize folks if you really want to stop all this.
When you drag shit down and ruin things for everyone, you wind up hurting the company more than the value your work provides, and people stop wanting you around. You are not a bunny-ears lawyer. The very few in existence are either learning to grow up or get kicked to the curb they always belonged. You'll be a lot happier if you learn too.
Not really. It's just a reassertion of the reasonable-doubt standard. When you're no longer fooling anybody, that's enough. When the arguments against the charges are clear bullshit, they hold no value. Essentially, this is removing the veils that abusers and rapists hide behind to escape the consequences of their actions despite there being no reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
(If you want more proof of that, consider that they're hailing decisions like Google's to allow these cases to be settled in court. Shouldn't #MeToo be against that, if the idea is to end-run the reasonable-doubt standard? Private arbitration is much friendlier to end-running reasonable doubt, yet #MeToo runs toward the concept, not away from it.
This is why you can't get a date. Go back to /pol/, creep.
You could never hurt me. Be it mentally or physically.
You do realize that's basically the biggest tell for being hurt, right?
While at the same time you try to intimidate weaker people as you failed to do in the post above.
Hold on; now you've gone on to admitting that not only am I hurting you, but I'm stronger than you?
Imagine that. And imagine these, while you're at it: how should I feel about this? And how should you feel when you do the same things to people weaker than you?
People like you aren't worth the air that you breathe. I'm a rather good judge of character, prison does that.
Blah blah blah Navy Seal yada yada 130 confirmed kills etc. etc. gorilla warfare [REDACTED]king end you.
See how easy that is?
Besides, I submit your palling around with and knowingly acting as enabler to incels and Nazis as evidence that you aren't actually a very good judge of character at all. Especially for someone who claims to have been in prison.
From the few posts of yours I have read in this thread... You seem like a two faced "friend when you're around" type person.
Because I don't acquiesce in the face of abuse from you and your buds? That's not loyalty, that's Stockholm syndrome.
Hold on; did you just admit that I'm hurting you? Imagine that. And while you're at it, here's some more food for thought: how do you think other people feel when you do these very same things to them?
See, it's not quite how you're phrasing it. This is "do as I say, not as you". I merely provide a reflection of what you do in a way you would understand.
These are all attacks on a person, and what you wrote, very certainly is bullying.
Yes. Yes, it is. I've been open this entire time about the fact that what I'm doing here crosses the line.
It is not life, and it is not society. Giving the silent treatment is also a form of bullying, as is excommunication. Silent treatment is different from collective avoidance, which is similar to excommunication.
People not wanting you around is not bullying. You are not entitled to popularity.
Want to know another secret? There was a time when I wasn't so different from you. Not completely the same, but you'd have recognized me as being on the path to becoming one of you. And people didn't want me around, because I was a little shit, and I thought that was bullying. And the hell of it is, I actually did experience a couple years of the real thing. Then I got moved into another school with a strong antibullying program, still didn't get popular, and thought the bullying had started up again (qualitatively different -even I wasn't so blind as to not see a difference- but I still thought I was being bullied when I was not). And then it happened again at yet another school with another strong antibullying program.
But I said "eleven years", which naturally leads to a question: what happened to the twelfth? Well, someone finally got through to me. This was extremely unpleasant; traumatic, even, but that is why it worked. And when I finally understood that I and I alone needed to change, and started making those changes, things finally began to improve. The isolated bullying incidents stopped within days. The ostracism cleared up within a month or so: I was never a social butterfly, but there's a noticeable difference between when people actively don't want you around and when they consider you an okay guy.
So yeah. I got out. And now I reach back, to help pull others out. The ones who are well and truly being treated unfairly can be helped along with far nicer methods than this; I already know that. Even some of the fair targets can, depending on where exactly the actions they're being targeted for come from. But some of you are tougher to crack, and so another approach is needed.
While silent treatment, collective avoidance, and excommunication are not illegal, they are not always ethical, and must thus be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
True as far as it goes. Even ostracism can be applied to inappropriate targets. That just isn't what happened to you. I've seen enough of your case to evaluate it.
A person who wrote what you wrote, Millennium (user #2451), should be avoided as much as possible.
Is that supposed to be power words?
I pity the people who are forced to be in such a person's circle without any recourse.
I don't hide behind an anonymous account. No one is forced to be in my circle. If people really didn't want me around, they could ban me or warn me or evem just downvote me into oblivion, and I would go away.
Yet they don't. Not on this site, and not anywhere else. Why not? It's not like I don't give them ample reason to: as I said before, I openly cross the line. There is no code of conduct or terms of service that condones what I do. Yet not only am I tolerated, people even seem to kind of like me.
And you've got to ask yourself: why is that? This is the site that gave us the infamous "Voices from the Hellmouth": perhaps not the greatest of articles on the subject, but nevertheless indicative of this place's general attitude. Shouldn't what I do be held in contempt? Yet it isn't, and that's a curious phenomenon, all right. Why would I be tolerated? My hypothesis is that I am tolerated because of my targets. The geek community has long been noted for radical inclusivity, but we picked up some people we shouldn't have, and they drove many others away. Now that mistake is being corrected.
Does it have to be Linus doing the reacting, though? Seems to me there's a whole bunch of them here already.
It's modded down for being an obvious troll. My own response to it was modded Troll too, and this is fair: I really was trying to make a constructive argument, but I admit that I chose deliberately trollish wording as part of illustrating that point.
Protesting fair moderations is not looked on kindly by the staff. I suggest you stop.
Ah. I see the problem. You think I'm a liberal.
You're right that the libs have a severe problem when it comes to actually following the principles with which they inculcated a generation. But I am no liberal to claim that there is no one true path: false paths exist, and yours is the falsest. I'm not going to sit and preach that all viewpoints are equally valid: yours is merely the most invalid of all. The libs taught us all that no one deserves to be bullied, but they also taught us to that bullying and ostracism were the same thing, and this is not so: they are not, and some people do deserve to be ostracized, and you are among them.
No, I'm not a liberal. I am the parents and grandparents you disappoint on a daily basis. I am the traditions you pay lip service to the idea of upholding, but can't be bothered to actually put in any effort to uphold. I'm the duties you tell yourself you can't perform because that is easier than performing them. I am the people the libs replaced, protesting even back then that they were going to unseal people like you, and they didn't believe, but lo and behold, here you are. I am the people who kept your cage shut from the inside, and I now I am the people who will push you back in and lock ourselves in with you, just to make sure that you never, ever get out again. Because letting you run wild isn't worth any political goal.
Why is "incel" not considered a sexist term?
Well, actually, female incels exist. The term was in fact coined by a woman, describing her own condition. She had a disability which physically prevented her from having sex, but still had a functioning libido, and she founded a community of people in similar circumstances. The term is gender-neutral. Kind of tough to be sexist when you don't specify a sex.
Why are people claiming to be against hate, sexism, and exclusion so often filled with hate, sexism, and excluding others?
You leave us little choice. Nothing else has convinced you to grow up, so we are down to this.
Either politeness works and we all ought to be or it doesn't.
It doesn't work. You're the proof of that. So the rest of us continue being polite to one another while showing you the other side of what you do.
Not so much fun, is it? My question is, what makes you think other people feel any different when you do it to them? This is what happens when you become what you hate.
It is when you label a certain group you dislike "assholes" or "creeps," and say "we don't want your kind around here!"
Ah, see, here's the problem: you're still assuming that the labels of "asshole" and "creepy" refer to a person's essence -innate, immutable qualities- rather than a person's status, which is changeable. To some extent the English language isn't especially helpful here, since we have only the single verb "to be" for expressing both.
One thing we are seeing with this movement is a tendency to draw sharp lines and judge people often on a single interaction in the distant past,
Except that this isn't actually the case. A single interaction is often enough to start an inquiry over, yes, and this is as it should be. Inevitably, more interactions come up, sometimes past, sometimes present, providing yet more windows into the person's underlying status. A single bad interaction is easy enough to overcome, except in the most egregious cases, if other interactions show that the person has changed. But this isn't usually what happens: you get more glimpses into a person's character, and it turns out thar they haven't changed at all, and this is where the judgment begins.
immediately making them pariahs despite any good they may have done since then, and ignoring any similar behaviors we may have committed ourselves once upon a time.
Karma is not a ledgerbook; you cannot "balance" bad deeds with good ones. That's not how atonement works. What people are looking for is actual change. If you've got some useful stuff under your belt but you're still the same asshole you always were, you're nothing but the asshole you always were. A creep who sometimes does good deeds is nothing but a creep. If you want out of the judgment, you can't just say some prescribed number of Hail Marys, or even "do better": as long as that's your attitude, nothing will ever be enough. You have to be better, and let whatever good you do come as a result of that change. Only then are people ever going to decide to forgive you, and even then some of them might not, and that's okay too. The whole point of forgiveness is that you are not entitled to it.
This is very typical of a witch hunt.
Your broom is showing.
It isn't bullying to not want someone around because they're an asshole or a creep. Going out of your way to torment soneone, that's bullying, and yes, what I do does, in fact, cross that line.
But I wonder: how much of what you faced growing up was actually people going out of their way to torment you? Some, no doubt: even people who were mostly fairly ostracized still usually experience sone bullying, because as a society we really suck at teaching people the difference. But if you're like most of your kind, I very much doubt you faced any significant amount of it for most of your school years. Most of it was just people avoiding you, trying to stay away: they didn't want you around because you were a little shit, but they were perfectly content to leave you alone as long as you let them.
But you didn't let them. You couldn't. You thought people not wanting you around was bullying, because you thought you were somehow entitled to popularity. Think back. Think hard. You know it's true, at least for most of it, am I right? Maybe there was one school where things got worse, or even two, and you really did face a couple of years of legit bullying then. You even noticed it was different somehow, but wrote it off as just another kind of bullying, but really, it was the only actual bullying you ever faced. The other "bullying" was people simply not wanting to be around you and leaving you alone, and that, I'm afraid, was all your fault.
And that's what the unmask-and-ostracize folks are after. People who know you for what you are stay away from you, because you're creepy. That isn't bullying. That's just society. Actions have consequences, and you know this, because that's why you hide. You know you deserve it. You just don't want to change. Which is your prerogative, I suppose, but if you don't change, then no one else needs to either.
Ah, see, that's where you've gotten things a bit mixed up. I am not a left-winger; in fact, the ones I've talked to are generally only slightly less appalled by the things I say than you are. They aren't as compassionate as they like to think they are, but even they usually think I'm too hard on your fee fees.
Literally nobody anywhere used the "echoes" parentheses before the Nazis did. And the few decent people who picked them up from the Nazis unknowingly reacted with horror when they realized they'd essentially been doing random Nazi-saluting in public without realizing it, and stopped. Because that's what a decent person does: you leave stuff the Nazis have ruined to the Nazis, so that the unmask-and-ostracize folks have the tools they need to do the unmasking part.
Aren't we already seeing that like 20 times over, just in this thread alone?
Basic human decency is receiving anal? Man, you really are insecure.
I don't see how this particular response by Linus "focuses on the person" at all.
I don't know, I find the sobbing and screeching of incels and Nazis to be quite a catchy little tune.
Yo dawg I heard you don't like bots so I made you a bot to report bots so you can report bots while you report bots?
Actually, no I don't. I'm pro-life- *CONSISTENT* pro-life. And my views have evolved since I chose this handle. I certainly would not want anybody "culled".
The Consistent Life Ethic, I've heard it called. Good for you. But it wasn't your views I was questioning. I believe you when you say you don't want anyone culled; it's your pals I'm less sure of. You're being used as a shield by people who very much do want to cull people like your son, and as near as I can tell, you seem perfectly okay with that.
In fact, in keeping with everything else I said- I want people to breed. Maximum genetic diversity is good for the species, because what we determine to be "defective" is flawed.
Your friends would say otherwise. Indeed, this is dangerous talk for someone like you, because it's the kind of thing that gets you labeled a traitor by people like them. I do not like your compatriots very much. Why do you?
Of course, my son's "accomplishments" are things like actually finally getting rid of pullups at age 15......
And if that's the time he needed, good for him. I had a relative who came to a similar accomplishment much later in life. But seriously, you've allied yourself with people who do not recognize these things the way you and I do, and they aren't going to be happy to see you talking like this.