Deliberate harm

[lalouve]

This entry comes out of the ongoing RaceFail09, but is not directly connected - I don't want to say inspired by, since 'inspirational' seems a deeply incorrect term, but perhaps 'triggered by' would be appropriate

Comments

[eregyrn]

I've been reading a lot about all of this, and let me be clear: I'm angry as hell about what those two have done, and also angry at many of the other things that have been coming from what I think of as the Fail Side. So this is just me theorizing, trying to understand for myself how they CAN be doing these things; trying to figure out, IS it deliberate harm? Or what?

I think... yes, it is... BUT, I think they are conceiving of it in a way that absolves them of the label "malicious". Maybe that's an obvious thing to say... It's just that I see them as thinking that by outing coffeeandink, they are engaging in some grand "moral" act -- they believe they are acting according to principles that others can and should understand. If they realize they are engaging in intimidation at all, they have already convinced themselves that intimidation tactics are justified.

I just feel the need to step back once in a while and grapple with this, because I think it's the root of this behavior. I agree with everything you've written here, and if my guesses about their self-justifications are true, I can only call them delusional. But I think of dealing with (or even processing the results of) delusion differently from how I process/deal with things that really are purely malicious.

(Also to be clear, this is in no way an excuse for what they've done. There is meant to be no sense of, "well, they think they are doing 'good', fighting a good fight, so..." No. I think that malice that is cloaked in self-righteousness is even harder to deal with, since you have get through that layer of delusion, and that is so very difficult itself. I guess I'm just saying that in order to deal with it, I like to know that the layer of delusion is there.)

[lalouve]

I see your point, and would only like to argue a mostly practical point. Firstly, I don't think harm has to be malicious to be deliberate: the soldier rarely has anything personal against the opposite side, and may well kill wihtout any malice at all. The harm is still dleiberate and intentional. I agree that they're very likely not seeing themselves as malicious, but I would say they know they're doing harm - even if they might disagree with others on how much harm - they are arguing justification.

What I think they are also not seeing, is that doing deliberate harm must be very clearly controlled, ideally by others, in order to be defensible. There may be situations when deliberate harm (violence, intimidation, etc) is justified. But one very good ground rule is that the person doing the harm cannot set the rules for when it's justified - police officers (should) have clear rules for when they may use force, soldiers have a chain of command and political control, etc. The delusion begins when you take doing harm into your own hands, and continues when nothing anyone says can convince you that what you're doing is wrong.

[eregyrn]

*nods* I do agree with everything you say here.

It DOES make me nuts that these people have decided that THEY are the ones with the authority to cast themselves as The Internet Police of SFF... and that apparently there is no other entity with any power to say to them (in a way that sticks), "no, that is not your job; don't do it; you've only fucked it up; here's some consequences that you will recognize, that will actually affect you". They're vigilantes in a milieu without a justice system, and you know, they are NOT the goddamn Batman.

(Oh, wait; Batman uses a pseud AND a mask. I guess they wouldn't like comparison to him, either. Although, my invoking of the character is meant to be shorthand for a whole bunch of issues surrounding the heroification of vigilantism, and hoe problematic it can be.)

[lalouve]

Don't get me started on vigilantism - it's a subject on which I'm opinionated, hypocritical, and a general mess ;)

I do so wish that someone could get through to them. Doesn't seem to be happening - though at least one of them took his LJ and went home, for the umpteenth time in history...

[agrumer]

Kathryn's not listening to her friends (or at least not to me). I don't think she's even listening to her husband.

Will Shetterly never listens to anyone, at least online, but that's not news.

[lalouve]

I'm sorry if I implied that her friend's weren't trying; I have seen Will's friends try. Your trying is appreciated, especially since this must be difficult and, I would guess, painful for you.
We all have friends who decide, at one time or repeatedly on specific points, to act stupidly, and there's nothing to be done about it.