Upload your photos
Forgot your password?
Ha! Yes. You; good communicator. Me…let's just say…in my head a little too
Oh for sure, no one is above criticism. It's necessary for everything, and for
anything to improve. If you inferred the opposite from what's in my second
paragraph of my original comment, I'll take that aspect back.
In the case of your analogy, absolutely it should be held to a strict standard
for every way it affects society. Great examples are the way the late
Christopher Hitchens criticised Mother Teresa for her opposition to
contraception, while it drove the poverty she fought. Or Glenn Greenwald
criticised Charlie Hebdo, not on grounds censorship, but of choosing the
somewhat popular (in France) easy target of Muslims for their mockery, instead
of aspects that aligned more with cultural norms. That last example has been
misused by many, not least of which being Sam Harris. I probably come across
as one of the more extreme perspectives here, but I actually tone it down
substantially. If I had to label my world view, I'm a pitchforks to the street
style libertarian socialist (a real socialist) who dabbles in futurism. But I
don't try to get too forceful, or underestimate the distance there is between
me and the average view. Anyway, suffice it to say that I'm not short on
I'll come back at you with another, slightly more pointed analogy, which I
infer from an editorial note to a recent Uncle Dave. Just because someone is a
prolific trail builder, does that excuse them for riding trails that are
closed for reasons related to elevated potential for environmental damage?
EDIT: I missed your real question, sorry. The ideal is a very strict standard.
The reality is that change takes time, and has resistance, so should be
tempered by expectation.
Please log in to leave a comment.