I apologize for my obtuseness, but I can't see how what you have said here connects to what I said. Not disagreeing with you, just not understanding.
To respond to what you've said, though, the idea that a person should be consistent seems wrong to me. When we get angry at someone for changing their minds, we are making a mistake. And we …
I apologize for my obtuseness, but I can't see how what you have said here connects to what I said. Not disagreeing with you, just not understanding.
To respond to what you've said, though, the idea that a person should be consistent seems wrong to me. When we get angry at someone for changing their minds, we are making a mistake. And we have all experienced the challenge of having two possibly diametrically opposed sets of feelings about a dilemma we face. Indeed, that's what makes it a dilemma.
So if the idea that people should be consistent is wrong in cases we're familiar with and associate as characteristic of being a good person, analyzing someone's bad behavior on the basis of whether or not it is consistent with their past behavior is equally fallacious. The problem isn't that they are inconsistent—it's that they are behaving in a way that is harmful. We want someone like that to be inconsistent, by changing their mind about being harmful. If we criticize them for being inconsistent, we are practically begging them not to change.
Fair comment "If we criticise them for being inconsistent, then we are practically begging them not to change."
What concerns me is something different, although horribly familiar: People (particularly politicians) who say one thing to get elected, and the opposite as soon as they get their hands on the keys to 'office'. Empty promises. Also known more colloquially as BS.
And people who are wilfully harmful - there's a simple word for that too, "Trolls" - from the fables of the classics.
And there is a simple rule to apply to that: "don't feed the Troll" - or don't give the oxygen of publicity to wilful disruptors. (From online Open Source etiquette - from the time before the Internet - the time of 'bulletin boards', decades ago.)
We live in a world of amplification - nothing new (all media tend to amplify - literally or figuratively), its just that we live in 'weird' world where amplifying hatred and stupidity is 'automatically' monetised, and 'algorithm-ised' - i.e. (anti-) social media is deliberately programmed to do just that, with no prospect of anyone (least of all the US Congress) changing any of that, anytime soon.
Clause 230 of the CDA of 1996 is the (worst) problem, and it doesn't help for the Department of Justice to say that the 'time is right for the scope of this clause (of the the CDA) to be reconsidered.' Silicon Valley executives and all their shareholders have far too much money at stake to ever let that happen. (Call me cynical if you like!)
I apologize for my obtuseness, but I can't see how what you have said here connects to what I said. Not disagreeing with you, just not understanding.
To respond to what you've said, though, the idea that a person should be consistent seems wrong to me. When we get angry at someone for changing their minds, we are making a mistake. And we have all experienced the challenge of having two possibly diametrically opposed sets of feelings about a dilemma we face. Indeed, that's what makes it a dilemma.
So if the idea that people should be consistent is wrong in cases we're familiar with and associate as characteristic of being a good person, analyzing someone's bad behavior on the basis of whether or not it is consistent with their past behavior is equally fallacious. The problem isn't that they are inconsistent—it's that they are behaving in a way that is harmful. We want someone like that to be inconsistent, by changing their mind about being harmful. If we criticize them for being inconsistent, we are practically begging them not to change.
Fair comment "If we criticise them for being inconsistent, then we are practically begging them not to change."
What concerns me is something different, although horribly familiar: People (particularly politicians) who say one thing to get elected, and the opposite as soon as they get their hands on the keys to 'office'. Empty promises. Also known more colloquially as BS.
And people who are wilfully harmful - there's a simple word for that too, "Trolls" - from the fables of the classics.
And there is a simple rule to apply to that: "don't feed the Troll" - or don't give the oxygen of publicity to wilful disruptors. (From online Open Source etiquette - from the time before the Internet - the time of 'bulletin boards', decades ago.)
We live in a world of amplification - nothing new (all media tend to amplify - literally or figuratively), its just that we live in 'weird' world where amplifying hatred and stupidity is 'automatically' monetised, and 'algorithm-ised' - i.e. (anti-) social media is deliberately programmed to do just that, with no prospect of anyone (least of all the US Congress) changing any of that, anytime soon.
Clause 230 of the CDA of 1996 is the (worst) problem, and it doesn't help for the Department of Justice to say that the 'time is right for the scope of this clause (of the the CDA) to be reconsidered.' Silicon Valley executives and all their shareholders have far too much money at stake to ever let that happen. (Call me cynical if you like!)
How is being nice to Trump when you are sitting next to him at a funeral "feeding the trolls?"