The Maker Movement offers Tee-shirts emblazoned with "If you can't fix it, you don't own it". We are permitted to 'rent' this stuff for an unspecified time-span at the manufacturer's discretion.
I condemn no-one in this thread. Neither do I praise. I am not qualified to apply any moral compass to the 'keep silent for decades' decisions that were made, and I have not done this. I am merely attempting, and clearly failing, to suggest that those who adopted this strategy are being neither brave nor heroic nor courageous in belatedly disclosing abuse now that the cat is out-of-the-bag.
Clearly being among the first to go public requires personal courage, generally a praiseworthy trait. There is, though, some later point at which it becomes 'safe' to disclose without risk of disbelief or career damage, when public opinion has tilted against the accused, and new accusers can ride that wave unchallenged.
Indeed I would argue that it is now in the self-interest of victims, of whatever severity, to come forward so as to avoid an unplanned surprise disclosure by others. Such involuntary discovery would prompt a raft of awkward questions around the reasons this extended silence: perhaps the implied 'bargain' was a good one, possibly a career boost to compensate for a lack of talent. Or of course the episode may just be too traumatic to re-live. In any event continued silence would require uncomfortable explanations best avoided.
To address your question directly, aside from the first handful of victims, any subsequent public disclosures involves little or no personal risk and so cannot be classed as courageous. There is no reason to 'praise' this newfound openness, unless accompanied by an apology for the damage wrought upon others by their silence. That would indeed be praiseworthy, if unlikely.
I refer you to (Ahem...) Alice's Razor which states in terms: "For most moral dilemmas the more difficult choice is usually the right one"
My conjecture is merely that those who knew but remained silent over the decades may deserve some sympathy, but do not deserve our praise for their re-discovered courage delivered before the world's media.
And what are we to think of those budding starlets who took the crooked shilling and remained silent through the years, whilst amassing personal fortunes through Weinstein's influence and watching on silently as his behaviour accelerated and the damage to others mounted? Those who only now are so bravely coming forward (via their agents?).
Arguments about the 'right to privacy' are doomed to fail. Governments are delighted to engage on this question, its no problem for them; any privacy rights are effortlessly trumped by the list of supposed benefits to society that State snooping promises.
The opponents of State snooping are therefore, ipso facto, pro crime, terror, death etc etc. In political terms, the debate is unwinnable since few if any if us can list the counterbalancing benefits of individual privacy rights in persuasive terms. Certainly not in less than the 15 seconds attention span of listeners.
The question should be: "By what right do you (the State) snoop on me, and under which specific circumstances"?
Gramsci actually went on to say that in order to maintain the comfortable status quo, you need to make your own culture, values and objectives sound like ?common sense? to everyone else. And to do this, you need to manipulate the language. Thus mass surveillance makes perfect sense in terms of 'the war on terror', whilst being in fact both insane and unsustainable. "Alice".
'..whenever speech is corrupted, so is the mind..' (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Alice.
"ownership"
The Maker Movement offers Tee-shirts emblazoned with "If you can't fix it, you don't own it". We are permitted to 'rent' this stuff for an unspecified time-span at the manufacturer's discretion.
Re: Re: Re:
I condemn no-one in this thread. Neither do I praise. I am not qualified to apply any moral compass to the 'keep silent for decades' decisions that were made, and I have not done this. I am merely attempting, and clearly failing, to suggest that those who adopted this strategy are being neither brave nor heroic nor courageous in belatedly disclosing abuse now that the cat is out-of-the-bag.
Re: Re:
Clearly being among the first to go public requires personal courage, generally a praiseworthy trait. There is, though, some later point at which it becomes 'safe' to disclose without risk of disbelief or career damage, when public opinion has tilted against the accused, and new accusers can ride that wave unchallenged.
Indeed I would argue that it is now in the self-interest of victims, of whatever severity, to come forward so as to avoid an unplanned surprise disclosure by others. Such involuntary discovery would prompt a raft of awkward questions around the reasons this extended silence: perhaps the implied 'bargain' was a good one, possibly a career boost to compensate for a lack of talent. Or of course the episode may just be too traumatic to re-live. In any event continued silence would require uncomfortable explanations best avoided.
To address your question directly, aside from the first handful of victims, any subsequent public disclosures involves little or no personal risk and so cannot be classed as courageous. There is no reason to 'praise' this newfound openness, unless accompanied by an apology for the damage wrought upon others by their silence. That would indeed be praiseworthy, if unlikely.
I refer you to (Ahem...) Alice's Razor which states in terms:
"For most moral dilemmas the more difficult choice is usually the right one"
Re: Re:
Agreed, it's much easier to Do The Right Thing when there is no longer a personal price to pay.
Like now, for instance...
My conjecture is merely that those who knew but remained silent over the decades may deserve some sympathy, but do not deserve our praise for their re-discovered courage delivered before the world's media.
And what are we to think of those budding starlets who took the crooked shilling and remained silent through the years, whilst amassing personal fortunes through Weinstein's influence and watching on silently as his behaviour accelerated and the damage to others mounted? Those who only now are so bravely coming forward (via their agents?).
All Your Password Are Belong To Us...
The Wrong Question ...
Arguments about the 'right to privacy' are doomed to fail. Governments are delighted to engage on this question, its no problem for them; any privacy rights are effortlessly trumped by the list of supposed benefits to society that State snooping promises.
The opponents of State snooping are therefore, ipso facto, pro crime, terror, death etc etc. In political terms, the debate is unwinnable since few if any if us can list the counterbalancing benefits of individual privacy rights in persuasive terms. Certainly not in less than the 15 seconds attention span of listeners.
The question should be: "By what right do you (the State) snoop on me, and under which specific circumstances"?
Gramsci & "common sense".
Gramsci actually went on to say that in order to maintain the comfortable status quo, you need to make your own culture, values and objectives sound like ?common sense? to everyone else. And to do this, you need to manipulate the language. Thus mass surveillance makes perfect sense in terms of 'the war on terror', whilst being in fact both insane and unsustainable.
"Alice".
'..whenever speech is corrupted, so is the mind..' (Lucius Annaeus Seneca)