Comment by PoignardAzur | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PoignardAzur | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> All we have is other people apologizing on their behalf with speculative redemption

Yup, I'm a little disturbed that people jump to defending him to a degree that borders on reinterpreting history.

Eg:

> Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding

Ok. Is there any evidence this specific person did? Did he apologize? Did his public writing change substantially since then?

It's not like this is an embarrassing photo taken during a party the guy had forgotten about. I have trouble imagining how someone could be hired as head of diversity for Google and forget that they published a screed about how jews should confront their appetite for war or whatever.

If the only information you have about this person is this, your first reaction should not be to find excuses to dismiss the information; or if it is, you should at least look for additional information, instead of speculating about how maybe the person totally changed their mind and is totally being treated unfairly.

My friend, it is not about _this_ person specifically, but an attitude to everybody. Maybe this person did not change, maybe they did. But we need to assume good faith when we can, else we do nothing but divide people even further. Imagine yourself in a situation where you’ve probably done something stupid, realise that it is stupid and wish to be forgiven. Wouldn’t you like that someone asks you first “have you understood your mistake?” rather than assume you are the same person because they haven’t found evidence to the contrary (guilty till proven innocent).

The issue isn’t that this person didn’t make a mistake - we all agree on that. The issue is that in our culture, we don’t make room for a person to make mistakes and grow (often the only way to grow) by forgiving them and believing that they are a better person now and can contribute to society more effectively going forward.

I understand this is a tricky balance to maintain. But I sincerely believe the internet junta is unforgiving and judgemental beyond the point of any utility except making oneself feel better by “other-ising” people they don’t know, and claiming that they wouldn’t ever be like that person.

The reality is that we are all remarkably similar. We’ve just been in radically different circumstances and who knows how we would have behaved had we been in a similar situation?

I don’t mean to pick a battle with you. I understand where you are coming from. I would love to have a civil discussion with you. Have a wonderful day.

I think you are coming at this with the judgment that his statements are malicious as opposed to honest reflections of how he perceives the world. I was educated at a Hebrew Day School and I found his consideration of “self-righteous impunity” of Israel state violence to be thought provoking, given the traditions dogmatic belief in its elected grace. Yet such opinions are muffled because? Oh that’s right, the majority of people cannot handle deep thought and get scared weighing ideas which are not the consensus. This Nietzsche called the “herd morality”; to censor is practically totalitarian and inimical to the American Founding Republic which savors self-independence which breeds liberty of conscience to promote the conscience liberty in others. It’s a shame people are not educated in this country to handle ideas and therefore liberty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com