941–950 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace the word "Jews" with "men" and gauge the reaction of those in the modern diversity movement. Either it's ok to say "not all ", or it isn't.
They wouldn't bat an eye.
[0]: https://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One has to note that he also made homophobic comments (available at https://archive.is/dp0n7 ): If I were to pretend to be gay, that isn’t something that I can just wash off and tell those who know me and saw me, that I was just pretending, it was just an experiment. Sure you’re not a homosexual. Having had that thought, I realized that within my inner emotional core, not only do I not agree with homosexuality, I sti…
i mean, in context, that passage feels more like he is realizing the strength of his internalized homophobia but not justifying it. but overall the existence of this blog is mystifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” And hey, great news, now we have every line written by every man, woman and child automatically captured and archived forever in an easy to search dossier. Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding and to a more compassionate worldview…
>Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Perhaps but i don't feel they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Which crimes do you feel are beyond rehabilitation? I can only think of one area of crime where the majority of people would agree without hesitation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least one of the sources in this article, the Washington Free Beacon, is financed by a right-wing activist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon So yeah, doesn't really seem like a case of progressives eating-their-own
banannaise's point is that the rhetorical weapons used by the left to bludgeon its enemies can and are being used by others. As esyir said, "It's hard to feel any sympathy when that chicken comes home to roost".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what she originally said https://twitter.com/alexi/status/1197290613701513217 > Today I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today. So yes > "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. is correct. Only when her plum new editor job was threatened did she offer something mor…
You're twisting "I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended" into "Sorry you're offended". Those are obviously different phrases with different meanings and intents. You might want to reevaluate your beliefs, because this is a glaring mistake with troubling implications.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27389282
> You might want to reevaluate your beliefs, because this is a glaring mistake with troubling implications.
No, you might want to re-evaluate your beliefs, because these are superficially different phrases. The intent may be the different, but the avoidance of responsibility is the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what she originally said https://twitter.com/alexi/status/1197290613701513217 > Today I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today. So yes > "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. is correct. Only when her plum new editor job was threatened did she offer something mor…
>> Today I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today. > So yes >> "Sorry you're offended" is much closer to accurate. > is correct. It is not though. In her twit she actually admitted that she was offensive, while “Sorry you’re offended” should be read as “I am sorry to hurt your feeling…
"“Sorry you’re offended”" a priori concedes that what was said is offensive because it acknowledges that the recipient was offended.
I explain in detail why they are effectively the same here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding and to a more compassionate worldview. But the writing remains forever, conveniently accessible. Not all writing is equal. There is a difference between let's say a tweet that was sent in during a flamewar versus a personal blog post that has been penned in the past and stayed published until today. The function of…
> All we have is other people apologizing on their behalf with speculative redemption Yup, I'm a little disturbed that people jump to defending him to a degree that borders on reinterpreting history. Eg: > Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Ok. Is there any evidence this specific person did? Did he apologize? Did his public writing change substantiall…
The issue isn’t that this person didn’t make a mistake - we all agree on that. The issue is that in our culture, we don’t make room for a person to make mistakes and grow (often the only way to grow) by forgiving them and believing that they are a better person now and can contribute to society more effectively going forward.
I understand this is a tricky balance to maintain. But I sincerely believe the internet junta is unforgiving and judgemental beyond the point of any utility except making oneself feel better by “other-ising” people they don’t know, and claiming that they wouldn’t ever be like that person.
The reality is that we are all remarkably similar. We’ve just been in radically different circumstances and who knows how we would have behaved had we been in a similar situation?
I don’t mean to pick a battle with you. I understand where you are coming from. I would love to have a civil discussion with you. Have a wonderful day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a post from 14 years he's apologized for. I'm sure everyone has plenty of beliefs from 14 years ago that no longer fits their current beliefs.
True, but it seems like most aren't given a second chance like he was.
Most are almost never put in a position where things they've done or said over a decade ago is put under a spotlight. You have to be in a specific position, and have people specific want to take you down in the first place. Why do you think this specific post from 14 years ago happens to have been brought up now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a post from 14 years he's apologized for. I'm sure everyone has plenty of beliefs from 14 years ago that no longer fits their current beliefs.
But if Google thought he was now benign, wouldn't he just remain at the post? Moving him to a different department seems to indicate that Google think he did wrong, but not that much wrong as to fire him. I'm not sure how to reconcile that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One has to note that he also made homophobic comments (available at https://archive.is/dp0n7 ): If I were to pretend to be gay, that isn’t something that I can just wash off and tell those who know me and saw me, that I was just pretending, it was just an experiment. Sure you’re not a homosexual. Having had that thought, I realized that within my inner emotional core, not only do I not agree with homosexuality, I sti…
A year later, California would vote to ban same-sex marriage. I won't hold their bigoted views against them, as long as they no longer hold them. If I didn't have that forgiveness, there would be half of the voting population of my state that I'd refuse to talk to.