undefined | Better HN

0 pointshoorayimhelping6y ago0 comments

>I welcome anyone to provide a counter-argument.

You're justifying the actions a lynch mob. Why does anyone need to provide a counter point? The onus is on you to explain why you think a mob taking justice into their own hands is okay. The only justification I can find is that he said something inappropriate. Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?

>This is a man who said something wildly inappropriate in an MIT forum and got fired. He deserved it. Defending him by pointing towards people who overreact to things is a bit terrible.

Completely missing the point of the outrage.

It's the chilling effect of people silencing views they don't like that really freaks people out, pisses them off and makes them mad. The actual views in play are irrelevant - the issue is that some person was uncomfortable at something some other person said, so they silenced the man's ability to say it. Not just that, they took away his vitality and ability to support himself. Anyone with any kind of functional critical reasoning facilities can instantly understand why this is scary.

It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions. If you think the wrong way, the progressive mob will make you seem unemployable. Because you had the audacity to say something "inappropriate," (oh also the mob determines what's appropriate and inappropriate on the fly).

0 comments

colechristensen6y ago

> You're justifying the actions a lynch mob.

No I'm not. I also don't think the outcome had anything to do with the mob. There were plenty of people even before the mob knew anything, who took strong exception to what RMS was saying.

> Who are you to decide what's appropriate? Are you the arbiter of morality for the entire world?

I'm not. MIT decided what was appropriate for their organization and the moral behavior of its employee and associate.

I am making what I think is a pretty universal moral statement in that old men taking advantage of young women for sexual pleasure is very wrong.

> It sets a precedent that completely removes the ability to have non mainstream opinions.

These aren't just "non-mainstream opinions" he was defending actions which most western societies consider rape. This isn't some slippery slope where people can't say anything nonconformist, this is a situation where people don't want to be associated with you when you publicly defend taking advantage of vulnerable, abused young women.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse