I've been trying to explain to people the concept of 'non violent vigilante justice' - retribution through group words!

Here's a response to my journal from Zach, when he was seeing my own 'urge to call in mommmy' (police) and pointing out the ethical holes there. Zaq is one of the first infected on metavirus, and so he is able to harken back to a purer, earlier version that can sluff aside the personal hurt and feelings and examine the situation from a clear, ethical, 'society-as-a-whole-must-benefit' framework.

Thanks for the reminder, Zach - this is exactly what I've been saying to people off lj!

;-b



no subject
wwjm
2007-04-16 08:30 pm (local)


From your description it seems that the guy has low impulse control and a severe lack of compassion. That is unfortunate.

On the other hand you have a fairly deep, if not somewhat skewed in my opinion, knowledge of the way people work & how to push buttons. Therby, making you if you choose so, to be an excelent instigator. And then you instigated a person such as above, knowing, according to your account full well what highly possible consequences would be.

Now, it may be the case that it is good thing for a person with a volitile personality such as this be shown as such to the community at large and perhaps even be removed from such untill a time in which he can exhibit more controlled behavior. Maybe not. The question then can become will the system he will now be entered into, if prosecuted, have the effect of reformation, or does putting a volitile unstable person in a hostile system with other potentialy volitile unstable people perhaps have the effect of making him more so than he originaly was. And if so then upon release actualy causing the orginal community to be worse off.

I then think that perhaps your interpretation of Gustav's perspective may be a little off, that yes, enabling bad action by ignoring it is not very responsible, at the same time instigating the same with out taking responsibility for the conseqences not desirable. And perhaps a more resposibile version of buddhism would to be to recognize, and be aware of unehtical behavior while approaching it with love, compassion, and understanding in order to show a new way of doing things.

I also question weather instigating whith full knowledge of possible unethical behavior is not perhaps as unethical, or more so, than the behavior itself and therby should be delt with, if jail time is the "answer", in the same manner.

It all has a similar mental taste to me as the US's foreign policy on terrorism. Which I also consider unethical, short sighted, and irresponsible.

BTW. This is mostly for your readers. That was for them too. You probably already know that, or at least I would hope so.

lates,
zaq




Exactly!
sporkly
2007-04-17 08:30 am (local)

Perfect response, Zach: You nailed the situation on the head.

1) I instigated a person 'such as this' knowing full well what the consequences could be. Remember deadletter b always gets what he deserves. The question then is, "Did Jonathan deserve it? Did Tori deserve it? Did Grit deserve it?"

2) For exactly the reason of having 'everyone' see what kind of person he is, visible and upfront, is the goal. And you are right that even talking about prosecution completely dilutes that goal. Because if one is willing to take on this role, of being the person who draws that out - it is only ethical if I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions/consequences from it. And running back to 'mommy' of police intervention having brought the situation exactly where I chose... would be a violation of the deadletter ethos.

Dead Letter has a stated policy of not taking people to the police for their actions - of slandering them and using video libel as a social check action. Having them go places where people have then "heard of his behavior already" is the goal, and this is what I have been explaining to people who are pushing me to prosecute - because the net effect of THAT is community awareness, and somewhere he is aware that the forgiveness of some kept him OUT of jail.


Which makes your third point right - agitation must always come with a strong, clear-eyed sense of responsibility about consequences.



And in conclusion - are you aware that your entire 'objection'/'clarification' rests on the ethical grayness of calling down the police hammer?


And I agree with you there, and you are the first one (FIRST!) to understand the ethical component that I have been raising with people in discussions about whether to prosecute or not.


Cause the answer is "not" - cause I can't use my exhaustion or personal involvement to dodge my clear obligation - to get some footage of chadwick being a cocksmack and broadcast that footage everywhere, rather than calling in the 'outside' authorities.


;-b

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Also:
sporkly
2007-04-17 08:34 am (local) (link)


Remember that my 'fairly deep' understanding of how people work/buttons to press is a very simple, simple, simple algorithm.


"Watch for meta, talk about it when I see it."


This is such a simple fractal that it has large, and long-lasting repurcussions for groups that I come to visit. I watch for change, another word for meta, and by noticing and reacting to change, the system itself notices and reacts to change. This amplifies change.


Which means I can never be certain WHAT the reactions will be in their specifics - only that there will be reactions and that they will build and damp according to the pattern.

Again, I always get what I deserve. I'm closer to being martyred by 40, now I need to make sure the 'Chadwick' I piss off is politically motivated.

;-b



A final note: the reason you might think my perspective is 'skewed' is because of that 'moment-of-weakness' flash right after such an event, where I appear to be reacting as we often give each other permission to react - as victims, failing to take responsibility and pushing that onto others. That's exactly why I infected you, and a host of others - to hold me to that standard by their reactions.