[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6125[View All]

File: 1596131446549.png (177.01 KB, 640x319, 640:319, qupRvcb_d_1.png) ImgOps Google

How do you judge a person? Do you believe in sorting people into strict categories such as good and bad? When trying to understand a person's negative traits, how much leniency can we give them? How do you balance a person's good actions with their bad actions?
41 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6179

>>6175
>nless you can definitively prove that the allegations are false (which you can't), then it's irrelevant
No, because the goal was to prove that CANCEL CULTURE exists.
>>6171
">Cancel culture is a thing that quite obviously exists, so I disagree.
I disagree. See how that works?"

Again; The standard for justice is to prove GUILT. This is because presuming GUILT is fascistic. It results in the absolute worst systems of law and justice humanty's ever been guilty of. The kind of systems in which people are tied to posts and burned alive, strung up from a tree for nothing more than their race, and so on.
It's a system we wisely realized was a horrific injustice. Nobody should support such a thing.

 No.6180

>>6176
ProJared was lucky, I'd say, as he was able to prove it. Some people are not so lucky.
It is not such an easy thing to prove your innocence over an accusation.

If I say "Talented Platypus is a pedophilic child-molester", it's probably not going to be easy for him to prove that's not true, right?
So, do we presume it's true, and thus treat him as though he's a child molester, or do we presume he's innocence as that results in the most just outcome?

 No.6181

>>6180

I mean that's also fair, but you have to set standards for what you believe to be true.  'cause actually you can't prove it either way in a lot of cases.  Rape for example has all sort of outs where you can't even be sure two people were near each other, especially as third parties across the internet.

So let's take your example of the clearly very evil pedophile, Talented Platypus.  You've claimed he's a pedophile, but you actually have no proof at all.  Literally nothing but your word to go on.  It's easy to say we shouldn't presume guilt in that case.

In the case of Pro-Jared, though?  You at least had corroborating stories and some doctored chat logs along with incriminating photos.  There was proof of his guilt, the proof was just also false.  If that was presented to a court, you'd now have to disprove the false evidence.  Which again, eventually he did, possibly in court even, but it wasn't quite the same situation as your example.

Point being that it kind of is up to a jury in the end.  A big argumentative jury that spams your social media a lot.  Because nothing is ever certain and you have to decide what you want to believe.

 No.6182

File: 1596255225377.jpg (17.36 KB, 210x240, 7:8, 1529142380921.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6178
>the side of people trying to paint the protests as illegitimate.
Only insofar as they were violent.  He clearly supported peaceful protests.

And there aren't just two sides on complex issues.  Individuals can hold nuanced opinions and shouldn't be pigeon-holed into a given "side".

>then it looks like what was supposed to happen happened.
I strongly disagree.  It is perfectly valid to oppose protests insofar as they are violent, destructive, or devolve into looting and other criminal behavior.  Trying to get someone fired for voicing such an opinion is extremely shitty and toxic.  

 No.6183

>>6181
I can understand the perspective, but the goal isn't to prove you're innocent in that case, it's to prove that the evidence demonstrating you're guilty is false.
There's no way to know 100% for certain, but, that's what "beyond a reasonable doubt" is for, essentially.
If you were the only person next to a guy who got a knife through his spine for seven miles, it's your knife that's in his back, and you're the sole inheritor of his property, it's reasonable to say "You probably killed that guy".
It's not guaranteed, he could've tripped and fell after stealing your knife, but it's pretty unlikely.
The big thing here, though, is what you do not say is "Well, you can't prove you didn't stab him, so you're guilty".

 No.6184

>>6179
Ok, And ProJared was accused of something, and they weren't able to prove he was guilty of it. In fact, he was able to provide evidence that he was (ostensibly) not guilty. And so he was able to recover. But if he HAD been guilty of those things, it would have been important for the public to know.

>>6180
>So, do we presume it's true, and thus treat him as though he's a child molester

We entertain the possibility and ask for proof of his deeds before passing judgement. There's more to this than just dismissing accusations or blindly accepting them wholesale.

>>6182
>Only insofar as they were violent.  He clearly supported peaceful protests.

Destruction of property is a valid form of protest. That doesn't change what I said.

 No.6185

>>6184
>We entertain the possibility and ask for proof of his deeds before passing judgement. There's more to this than just dismissing accusations or blindly accepting them wholesale.
Unfortunately, many do just blindly accept. That has certainly been my experience.
"Listen and believe".

>Destruction of property is a valid form of protest. That doesn't change what I said.
Destruction of innocent people's property is most certainly not fucking valid as a form of protest.
It demonstrates without a single shadow of a doubt you are not interested in justice.
That you do not care about punishing those who are guilty, protecting those who are innocent, or doing the right thing.
It makes it clear for all to see that you're only interested in your own self satisfaction. Your own selfish desires you can stand on a corpse and happily trod on an injustice to indulge.

 No.6186

>>6185
>That has certainly been my experience.

Who tried to cancel you and over what accusations?

 No.6187

>>6186
My experience in regards to others. As to when, like I said, you've got guys like Vic Mignogna, Count Dankula, and plenty of others.
Certainly it does not seem at all the case that anyone waited to punish Vic after they made sure that the accusations were correct.

 No.6188

>>6187
You can't prove that Vic Mignongna is innocent. So what is happening to him could be deserved. Especially if the allegations are true and he's been abusing his position of popularity to be a sexual predator.

 No.6189

>>6188
By that logic, the KKK hanging of black suspects for supposed crimes was justified, because we can't "prove" they were innocent.

 No.6190

>>6184
>Destruction of property is a valid form of protest.
That's your opinion.  How would you feel if people tried to get your fired for voicing it?

 No.6191

File: 1596260596443.jpg (87.51 KB, 828x598, 18:13, 101384426_1684288195043283….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6190
>That's your opinion

Actually it's the Bible's. But that's besides the point.

>How would you feel if people tried to get your fired for voicing it?

Holding the opinion that black lives matter will get you fired if you work for a white supremacist. It's nothing new to us. You have to know when to express your opinions and how.

 No.6192

>>6189
Killing someone without trial is still a crime because we have the right to be tried by a jury in this country. So no, that isn't accurate.

 No.6193

>>6192
The principle would be the same.
But, alright, let's work off of that:
What about those classic cases of early American racism in such judicial cases?
Was it justified for judges to presume guilt when a black suspect was brought before them, because "we can't prove they're innocent"?
>>6191
>Actually it's the Bible's. But that's besides the point.
Somehow I doubt that. Pretty sure the bible makes a point to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. But, even so, if the bible says it, that doesn't make it right.

 No.6194

>>6193
Why are we comparing an anime voice actor sexually harassing people to this, again? This is exceedingly silly. Cancel culture is being blown out of proportion by insecure men. Just don't sexually harass anyone and you'll be fine.

 No.6195

>>6194
Principle.
If it is acceptable to punish Vic because he hasn't proven he's innocent, it should be acceptable to punish a black suspect because he hasn't proven he's innocent.
To say otherwise would be hypocritical.

>. Just don't sexually harass anyone and you'll be fine
Just don't break the law. Police won't hurt you.

 No.6196

File: 1596261193057.jpg (565.95 KB, 1024x1079, 1024:1079, cia-jesus.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6191
>the Bible
Jesus only destroyed the property of guilty persons, not innocent people.

>Holding the opinion that black lives matter will get you fired if you work for a white supremacist.
Not necessarily.  White supremacists might hold that black lives do matter, but that they matter to lesser degree that white lives.

But my point was, you wouldn't like it if you got fired for voicing an honest opinion of yours, would you?  Well, try to have to empathy for others in that same situation.  Nobody deserves to lose their job for voicing a honestly held opinion unless the opinion is so far beyond the pale that it really makes you question the person's ability to do their job.

 No.6197

>>6194
> Cancel culture is being blown out of proportion by insecure men. Just don't sexually harass anyone and you'll be fine.
How can you say that?  Did you forget the example of David Shor already?

 No.6198

>>6195
So what's your solution? No one should ever accuse anyone of bad behavior because it's possible someone else could falsely accuse someone? That's stupid. People need to be free to accuse people of bad behavior.

>>6196
>Jesus only destroyed the property of guilty persons, not innocent people.

The system isn't innocent. That's literally the point.

> but that they matter to lesser degree that white lives.

That's not "mattering". If they matter less than another kind of life, and they can be discarded based on that judgement that's functionally no different than not mattering.

>you wouldn't like it if you got fired for voicing an honest opinion of yours, would you?

Nope. Which is why one must be careful who and where you express your opinions to. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

 No.6199

>>6198
Of course not: But nobody should be punished because "you can't prove they're innocent".
What should occur is people need to PROVE the bad behavior. A claim is not enough. The idea that "They didn't prove they're innocent" is insanely backwards.

And, frankly, it should be relevant to their occupation if they're getting 'canceled' besides. If my mechanic does a good job of fixing cars, I really could not care less if he happens to have been found guilty of armed robbery in three states.
I come to him to get my car fixed.

 No.6200

>>6199
>What should occur is people need to PROVE the bad behavior.

I agree. I rarely ever take accusations at face value if it's a figure I have any investment in.

 No.6201

>>6198
>The system isn't innocent. That's literally the point.
If innocent people bear the brunt of what happened to George Floyd because of being a part of the "system", then by that logic, George Floyd himself was guilty of killing George Floyd, as a participant in the system.

> If they matter less than another kind of life, and they can be discarded based on that judgement that's functionally no different than not mattering.
Not really.
If I sell a bagel for 1$, and a loaf of bread for 3$, they both have value. They both cost money.

 No.6202

>>6201
If you wanna discuss the protest, there's other threads to do that in. We are getting off topic.

 No.6203

>>6198
>The system isn't innocent. That's literally the point.
Then destroy property that belongs to this guilty system.  But don't the property of innocent small-business sole proprietors.

>>6198
> If they matter less than another kind of life, and they can be discarded based on that judgement that's functionally no different than not mattering.
Clearly someone who believes that black lives matter would not believe in the second conjunct (i.e., "they can be discarded based on that judgement").  And it is not logically impossible for someone to both subscribe to white supremacy and subscribe to the proposition that black lives matter.

>>6198
>Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
The only sequence from making a good-faith argument in support of an honest opinion (assuming it's not done in an inappropriate time/place/manner) should be getting a counterargument.  You shouldn't be met with a personal attack.

 No.6204

>>6202
Point being; Getting canceled for saying something as reasonable as "Attacking innocent people is wrong" is shitty.

 No.6205

>>6204
Because you're missing the point if you think Target is "innocent".

>Then destroy property that belongs to this guilty system.

They did. We've been over that. We can talk about that in another thread where people can pretend systemic racism isn't a thing if you want. This is about labeling people as bad.

 No.6206

File: 1596262180778.png (563.48 KB, 700x526, 350:263, 1 CGcVFNqU4iG-wai2O7iA0w.png) ImgOps Google

>>6205
Target was not the only place attacked.
To suggest it was is dishonest of you.

>This is about labeling people as bad.\
Sure; And labeling people as "bad" because they oppose a bunch of asshole thugs who decide it's appropriate to attack people who have not wronged them is disgusting.
It's a prime example of why cancel culture is awful.
Because absolutely horrible people will abuse it to push their agenda.

 No.6207

>>6206
Yeah, let's label the people exercising their right to protest as "assholes".

Really, you guys are still going on about this? You're really this afraid of black people? It's ridiculous. Now i'm not going to talk about the protests in this thread anymore and I'm going to ignore any posts about that.

 No.6208

File: 1596262377895.jpg (173.2 KB, 1440x810, 16:9, hanekawa-1404419294098.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6205
>This is about labeling people as bad.
Well, what do you think about the following points mentioned earlier?
>>6130
>Additionally, the concept of "bad person" might actually be harmful overall in civilized society, since it makes it easier to dehumanize those whom one considers to be "bad people".
>>6132
>The only thing I think we gain from a label like "bad person" is the ability to do the otherwise unconscionable to them.

 No.6209

>>6207
>Yeah, let's label the people exercising their right to protest as "assholes".
Just FYI, the legal right to protest does not extend to vandalism or theft.

 No.6210

>>6208
Well I think it's important that we keep the label of "bad person" to those who deserve it. Rapists and child molesters and things. People who manipulate others for their own gain. In those cases, whether or not we "dehumanize" them isn't really relevant. They dehumanize themselves through those actions.

 No.6211

File: 1596262599096.png (264.03 KB, 486x361, 486:361, 1 WSKxbaG71sOEEYLtd1Emyg.png) ImgOps Google

>>6207
You absolutely 100% do NOT have a right to VANDALIZE DESTROY AND LOOT private property.

This has NEVER, not ONCE been a thing.

This is not protest. This is not peaceful assembly.

>You're really this afraid of black people?
Of course not. This is representative of your own personal lack of honesty, not anyone here's position.
I am opposed to a bunch of scumbags who think it's okay to attack innocent people.
Not all black people are like that. It's racist to suggest they are

 No.6212

File: 1596262801809.jpg (87.53 KB, 634x460, 317:230, Cat becomes surrogate to h….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6210
>Well I think it's important that we keep the label of "bad person" to those who deserve it. Rapists and child molesters and things.
Why not just call them "rapists" and "child molesters" though?  I don't see the label "bad people" is important.

>In those cases, whether or not we "dehumanize" them isn't really relevant. They dehumanize themselves through those actions.
I kinda disagree.  Even rapists and child molesters shouldn't be dehumanized.  Even if they need to be sentenced to death, it shouldn't be an unnecessarily cruel death that strikes at their very humanity.

 No.6213

>>6211
You deny the problems that cause the protests, then denounce the people who get fed up. When we peacefully protest at football games, the president calls us "sons of bitches", and Fox News villifies us. This didn't happen in a vacuum, out of nowhere. We were pushed here. And now you want to cry because merchandise insured for millions is being damaged. You should have listened, and you could still listen. But your ears are still shut. So I don't give a damn what you think. Because you are lucky that black people are looking for equality and not revenge.

 No.6214

>>6212
Because there's literally hundreds of ways someone could be a bad person.

>Even rapists and child molesters shouldn't be dehumanized.

WHy not? They take away the humanity of their victims with their actions.

 No.6215

>>6213
>You deny the problems that cause the protests, then denounce the people who get fed up.
Do I? How so? I am perfectly happy to say there needs to be police reform in America, and that police are inclined far too often to use force greater than necessary, especially when it pertains to warrants and such things involving breaking into someone's house.
I might say the issues are more class, than race, but it's hardly a major issue as it pertains to addressing the problems; It's a definitional difference that doesn't actually change the solution.
I mean, unless the solution is segregation, I guess. Some people seem to have that odd idea. Don't see its practical benefit.

> When we peacefully protest at football games, the president calls us "sons of bitches", and Fox News villifies us.
Oh, yeah, how horrible, you get some mean words. That's totally something that justifies violence and destruction of people's property.

You can peacefully protest at football games if you like. Personally, I'm not a fan, as I see such things in the same way as video games, TTRPGs, and the like; Things people go to of all walks of life to relax and hang out. I find such things only end up dividing people, rather than bringing them together. But, then, I wouldn't call them a "son of a bitch" for it.
> And now you want to cry because merchandise insured for millions is being damaged.
Not everyone has insurance.
Not everyone's insurance covers violent rioting.
Insurance often has specific limits on payouts, which may already be hit thanks to the virus.

Your callousness towards hurting innocent people's livelihood demonstrates rather clearly it isn't about justice for you. You seem to be the sort more after revenge, or just causing pain and misery to others for the sake of it.

>You are luck that black people are looking for equality and not revenge.
Your behavior contradicts this. But, hey, continue your racial identitarian movement that has no trouble violently attacking its dissidents.
It's not like that has ended badly before, right?

Oh, wait, there was this one guy with a mustache...

 No.6216

>>6214
>Because there's literally hundreds of ways someone could be a bad person.
Yeah, but why not just be specific and say precisely what they did wrong?  That seems a lot more useful.  Like, I'd be willing to have a child molester repair my car, but I certainly wouldn't hire one as a babysitter.

>>6214
>WHy not? They take away the humanity of their victims with their actions.
Because we should try to be better than that, rather than descend to their level.

 No.6217

>>6195
>If it is acceptable to punish Vic because he hasn't proven he's innocent, it should be acceptable to punish a black suspect because he hasn't proven he's innocent.

Well I think both the source and the punishment matter a lot here.  Like we're talking about lynchings, but there's strong arguments that we should never use death as a punishment because it's impossible to be that certain of guilt.  And we're mostly talking about online harassment as a punishment, maybe boycotts, which comes from unofficial and uncontrolled sources, and more importantly isn't particularly close to death (though people definitely sometimes send death threats).

 No.6218

>>6217
In the case of Vic, as I understand it, he basically got booted from any events he was going to go to, was no longer able to get voice acting gigs, and had gotten removed from some credit types of things. But it's been a while since I last read that.
It's not quite just harassment and boycot. Or, perhaps I should say, as a consequence of the harassment and call to boycot, companies, being cowardly organizations uncaring about morality, will ultimately choose to remove the source of the mob's ire.

As to death and its difference, biggest one is you can't undo death. Otherwise, though, I see punishment as punishment, whether that's jail or a fine.

 No.6219

>>6218
>In the case of Vic, as I understand it, he basically got booted from any events he was going to go to, was no longer able to get voice acting gigs, and had gotten removed from some credit types of things.

And that's kinda where the source part comes into view.  'cause if a judge demanded that this happened and we were discussing how laws should be, that would be really serious.  But I think it's safe to say that because of whatever comments Vic had made people no longer wanted to consume his products.  And if we're talking about what we're doing as a nation, through a legal system, then it seems odd to demand that people purchase products from someone they aren't fond of, even if Vic ends up homeless as a result.

 No.6220

>>6216
> Like, I'd be willing to have a child molester repair my car

I wouldn't. I'd want him to be in jail for the rest of his life, if not sentenced to death.

>Because we should try to be better than that, rather than descend to their level.

there's a thin line between "sinking to their level" and "letting them manipulate you".

I think the label as "bad person" is useful because it's quick. You can say they are a bad person, and then elaborate on that if needed.

 No.6221

>>6219
The problem here is, I don't believe it's a case of people not wanting to "consume his products".
I'm seeing a case of an angry mob of a few, that hardly make up a great percentage of the main consumer base, screaming and yelling until the company caves to their demands booting a guy because it's the only way they'll go away.

You do not have to buy products of someone you are not fond of.
I would say it's a pretty shit thing to do to harass a company until they fire the guy, though.

 No.6222

File: 1596265975107.jpg (195.66 KB, 690x488, 345:244, kyousaya-aquarium-14217200….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6220
>I wouldn't. I'd want him to be in jail for the rest of his life, if not sentenced to death.
It is true that sexually molesting a child should be severely punished, possibly even by death.  And perhaps child molesters ought not be released back to society until evidence of rehabilitation.  (I think castration works well for rehabilitation?)  But if somehow a child molester was allowed to work at repairing cars, it wouldn't really bother me too much to get my car repaired by one.

>>6220
>I think the label as "bad person" is useful because it's quick.
I supposed if your judgement is based on a lot of little things.  But "rapist" is even quicker to communicate than "bad person".

 No.6223

>>6221

If a company wants to listen to a vocal minority, that seems like it's on them more than the angry mob.  The company could just as easily have taken a stand and stood up for their employee.

 No.6224

>>6223
I think I agree.  These companies should be blamed more for caving in.  If everyone told the angry mob to go pound sand, eventually they'd stop trying to get people fired.

 No.6225

>>6223
The trouble is, companies are typically morally neutral, if not immoral entities.
They don't tend to do the right thing.

 No.6226

File: 1596266532130.jpeg (37.93 KB, 680x467, 680:467, cat-filter-canada-drawing.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>6225
Perhaps there should be more legal protection for employees against shitty behavior by their employers, especially if the employer is a large corporation run by MBAs focusing on quarterly earnings.

 No.6227

>>6226
Not against it. Though, I imagine it's something that'd be difficult to pass for legislation.
Where would you really start?

 No.6228

File: 1596267749304.png (1.18 MB, 1200x900, 4:3, sleepy.png) ImgOps Google

>>6227
It is a hard problem.  I think California has some employee protections for political activity.

But now my brain is shutting down its logical reasoning centers; it is time for me to head to bed and get some sleep.  Goodnight!


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]