Personally I'm kind of numb to these rants on an emotional level. I think the bigger issue is why so many people need to make an enemy out of another person without imagining that there might be a deficit in their understanding as part of the problem. And why so many, when feeling justified in having made such an enemy, feel so completely empowered to take action against them in complete denial of their humanity. Who ends up being the target of that vilification is not so interesting. It seems an obvious consequence of someone's cultural identifications. I am not certain whether the drive to make such a vilification is changing in society or even whether it is mutable at all. I suspect it is. However, I do think American society has moved in the direction of supporting absolute divisions with harsher attitudes and consequences for those finding themselves on the villain side of things.
You can look at this scenario in a couple of ways. One is to identify the problem lying with identification of the proper villains. Another is to identify the problem lying with identifying villains at all.
I am of the latter view. I do want to specify that I certainly moralize behavior and recognize patterns of behavior and think there should be consequences for asocial behavior. But those things should as much as possible be clear, objective, and applied consistently and equitably. For example, legal consequences for crimes, being held out of public office, firing from employment, others being empowered to point out to you that certain ideas or actions bad. Certainly a pattern of behavior or belief should be accounted for when considering granting new privileges, but I believe it is otherwise best overall for every transgression to face consequences that are as immediate and direct as possible and then recovered from.
You can look at this scenario in a couple of ways. One is to identify the problem lying with identification of the proper villains. Another is to identify the problem lying with identifying villains at all.
I am of the latter view. I do want to specify that I certainly moralize behavior and recognize patterns of behavior and think there should be consequences for asocial behavior. But those things should as much as possible be clear, objective, and applied consistently and equitably. For example, legal consequences for crimes, being held out of public office, firing from employment, others being empowered to point out to you that certain ideas or actions bad. Certainly a pattern of behavior or belief should be accounted for when considering granting new privileges, but I believe it is otherwise best overall for every transgression to face consequences that are as immediate and direct as possible and then recovered from.
Of course, their last names could be the same, which would make it work, but it would be poor journalism to first reference a person by a common last name.
Facebook
Twitter