Reply to comment

Jan. 19, 2017, 1:31 p.m. -  Nat Brown

#!markdown Ha! Yes. You; good communicator. Me…let's just say…in my head a little too much. 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 opinions. 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.

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.