I think in this case I would consider that to be the calling of every sane, healthy human being.
But in the blog I was attempting to drive home the idea that there is a requirement for Nostr as a culture to act this way, or it does not deserve the freedom it claims.
I see. I disagree with people for good reason and when I do I am not obliged to support them. This post reminds me of an old Frank Herbert line:
“When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles”
This quote characterizes the results of every online tolerance movement for almost 10 years. I’m surprised we haven’t learned our lesson yet.
I can see how the word friend might skew my intended meaning there. I am speaking in terms like Jesus would've been with the term "neighbor."
I do not mean to propose that you have to agree with every person on the Internet, or even be chummy. I'm saying that when someone is being dog piled by a mob, which side the mob is on is irrelevant.
I refuse to be a party to abuse whether it's by the group that agrees with me, or disagrees. If I do, then I am no different than they are, and deserve what will inevitably happen when the mob turns against me.
It is quite possible to take a strong moral stand on an issue, while simultaneously standing against the treatment of people opposed to you. This is why we have things like war crimes, etc.
*I stand opposed to mobs, bullying, harassment, and abuse regardless of it's source or destination.*
This turns into a very deep conversation that would take several pages to fully articulate, but I hope I have communicated the gist of my meaning/intention. Probably could have worded that passage a bit better.
What if there are two mobs fighting each other? Do you take the side of your friends?
No. I don't. I lead by example.
I don't lay down and die either. I fight like hell to defend my friends and family when they are unjustly persecuted. But I do it with honor, and only as a last resort.
I should make clear I am not claiming any moral perfection. These are ideals I strive to live up to.
Pragmatism is both a blessing and a curse. Pragmatism checked my morality is a good thing. Absent morality it becomes an atrocity.
How can you expect to be part of any we if you won’t stand with the we against a they? What we would accept such a member?
I really couldn't care less. I'm not with a "we" or trying to join a "we." I'm going to stand with what's right.
"We" happens when other people are standing there too.
You say “we” 28 times and talk about what “we” must do, but you have no interest in being part of a we?
I do believe it was pretty clear that the intention was to call others to a higher level of behavior. A reflection. You seem much more interested in forming sides in a battle than you are in the conduct of the people you side with. That's not how a positive world is built.
I'm interested in a just world and support the public condemnation of unjust things or people. You seem to be arguing that everyone is worthy of advocacy regardless of their agenda or position. Tolerance and "positivity" are not virtues, while justice is. I'd also urge you to consider why you would expect anyone to join your cause when it cripples the primary mechanism we have to maintain cultures online; specifically, group gatekeeping.
Justice is never issued by a mob.
Thank you for your comments.
That's simply historically false. However, if you believe it axiomatically then there's nothing I can say.
I am tired and do believe we’ve run this to an end, where I at least have nothing to add at the moment.
I do want to part by giving you gratitude for reading my article, and spending your time today to engage in a good faith debate on its contents. I am richer for having discussed this with you, and I promise I do dwell on and consider points when someone disagrees with me.
You have gained my respect today as a good faith conversationalist. Thank you very much ❤️
