I have an acquaintance who has a coffee shop, in one part of this coffee shop he has a large wall space where he allows people to post things. It could be original content, responses to things other people have posted or whatever. Recently he had someone post something that was absolutely horrific. According to him, what had been written was the most vile, horrible, racist, sexist, homophobic, vulgar, anti-Semitic, hateful, lacking in grace, and just all around evil that he felt compelled to take it down. He ripped if from the wall as soon as he read the vile comment. He felt that he must protect the others who might read what was posted from its rampant evil. Yet, this guy was persistent, he made copies of what he had written, and he kept posting it. Of course, the public must be protected from such evil, and heaven forbid people be offended, so these posts kept getting removed. Then my acquaintance felt the need to post some responses to these comments, then he felt like it would be helpful to enlist others in his crusade to stop the spread of this evil. He asked the other patrons to denounce both what was written, as well as the writer. The problem was, that since he'd been so diligent in promptly removing the vile offensive document, that no one had actually been able to read it. So, no one could really honestly comment on it, because all they'd seen was interpretations of what it said. This certainly raised a conundrum. Clearly it is in the best interest of society in general for evil to be exposed and publicly denounced. Clearly this denunciation must be done in very firm terms. It's even better if the response includes vulgarity and expletives, that way people will really know how much you are against evil.
I just want to go on the record to support the immediate removal of anything that even has a hint of evilness to it, innocent people must be protected from this horror. I want to commend this fine public spirited citizen for protecting the rest of society from this sort of this sort of evil.
I have to wonder, though, if this continued expectation that observers accede to the repeated demands that third parties denounce something they haven't seen or read, is actually a reasonable response and action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Of course it's absolutely reasonable to expect that the person removing the posts is absolutely honest insisting that which was removed was vile. No doubt you can take his word for it. Why would you doubt him? What possibility is there that the fellow is unable to make objective judgements about such things? It's gotta be really low, I would imagine if he is not subject to error or bias. He sounds like someone who is keenly aware of just what would offend the sensibilities of absolutely everyone. I'm quite certain you can trust him to speak for you with regard to the vile nature of the person and what he posted, so that you don't have to worry about wondering if it actually was vile.
OR, he's a coward and a liar and doesn't want anyone to see that there was nothing so bad with the post after all, and that he was simply unable to avoid the logic and reason of the posted comment, which indicted the intelligence of the censor.
Now, now. The story above is merely a fable, a parable if you like. Any similarity to anything is coincidence.
Perhaps someone would not want to leave something on a page that mentions sexual assaults on one's loved ones (even theoretical assaults) because that is a bridge too far and too perverse and too disgusting to even mention to.
In this fable.
Perhaps nothing remotely similar to that suggestion ever took place. But we'll never know because some fool with no discernment ability had removed the post.
Dan would be that complete and utter fool. By Dan's "logic and reasoning" (two words that do not in the least describe anything attached to Dan's positions, nor his decision to delete comments that rebut them), there is absolutely no warning about anything he could give the women in his life. Doing so would necessarily make them complicit in their own suffering should they choose to ignore his warnings. Any warning means they responsible for what happens to them if they do not take heed. Indeed, Dan can't warn them for he will be blaming and shaming them in advance, so to speak, should they choose later to ignore his warnings and fall victim to having so chosen.
And Dan, caring so little for his womenfolk, wouldn't dare suggest after the fact any ways to prevent suffering in the same way a second time, because that would mean they could have done something in the first place, didn't do that something, and thus are in part (at least) responsible for their own suffering. Hell no. Dan will keep his mouth shut and hope it never happens again, even if he sees the very same choices that led to their suffering being made again.
And here's the really ironic aspect of this whole nonsensical "anti-victim blaming" crap sandwich the chuckleheaded left likes to spew in order to pretend they respect women: They welcome muslim refugees and denigrate Trump for taking steps to prevent the scum of the world from entering out country. I'll explain:
We who pay attention recall the incident in Germany as they rang in 2016 on New Year's Eve. Thousands of muslim men assaulted women out in public, and about 35 women were sexually assaulted.
Now suppose Dan gets his way and Trump swings wide the door to any and all immigrants and refugees. What are the odds that we'll be welcoming a significant percentage of muslims who view women so badly? Actual logic dictates, and actual men of reason understand, the odds would likely be high. So now there would be those who actually view women as existing for the purpose of pleasing men, demand women cover themselves totally so as not to arouse them and actually blame women should men feel compelled to rape them. Dan invites the very people he accuses me of being, and at the same time would not advise his own womenfolk how to live with his newfound friends without putting them at great risk.
Dan's a stupid man more interested in demonizing conservatives, Republicans and Donald Trump, than in actually demonstrating true concern for women and girls. He's a liar, a hypocrite and really, really stupid.
Perhaps expecting others to accede to ones demands without actually being able to read what they’re being demanded to denounce is just unreasonable.
Post a Comment