Recent searches
Search options
This is fine:
I want to say whatever I want! I don't want to have to consider other people! (But then I must accept that other people might leave).
Also fine:I don't want other people to leave! (But then I must consider how my words and actions affect others).
Not OK:You just have to take it!
This isn't complicated.
I feel like a lot of folk, usually people with privilege, have an underdeveloped sense of empathy, and a dangerously incomplete knowledge of the concept of consent.
They want "free speech" for themselves, but not "freedom to choose not to listen" for others.
Which is how we wind up with weird inconsistencies like:
"The people who bleat the loudest about free speech... are the very same people that think that you shouldn't be able to block."
What they really mean is "I can say whatever I want, and you just have to take it."
I don't have to take anything.
I don't even have to debate you or fight you. If you talk out of pocket, I can just walk away.
This isn't some "Just ignore them!" Or "Turn the other cheek!" nonsense.
This is "I can choose to be in places specifically where you are not. Reclaiming my time."
100%!
Small aside on "turn the other cheek": it possibly originally meant to be "bait an evil person into publicly showing their true colors". It may be noble, but also means you get hurt.
@blaue_Fledermaus @mekkaokereke The interpretation I've read that makes the most sense to me is that the Romans would only use the left hand to hit a Jew, because the left hand was "sinister," and the right hand was reserved for equals.
If a Roman hit a Jew using the left hand, the struck cheek had to be the right cheek. But if the Jew "turned to the Roman the left cheek also," it would force the Roman to use the right hand in order to hit that left cheek.
1/2
@blaue_Fledermaus @mekkaokereke So if the Roman did use the right hand in order to dole out abuse, that would mean the Roman was acknowledging the Jew as an equal.
It was all a metaphor for standing up against empire and not allowing the bastards to get you down. Jesus was encouraging his Jewish followers to engage in malicious compliance as part of resistance against being treated as subhuman. This was rebellion and a demand for the institution of human rights.
/sermon 
2/2
Perfect!
Either way it creates social consequences for the wrongdoers.
It's not a passive "let it be", but can (most certainly) also result in you receiving more abuse.
@mekkaokereke@hachyderm.io*Gospel music plays*
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oyyU-sMZuv8&t=10m45s
"
Try Jesus
Please don't try me
Cause I throw hands
Talk to 'em Luke
I know what it says
About getting slapped
But if you touch me or mine
We 'gon have to scrap
Oh he said
Turn the other cheek
Oh but that's one part of the Bible
That don't sit right with me
Talk to em Dave
Don't let this falsetto fool you y'all
Jesus is always there for you
But I'm not
I might let you down sometimes
But he's always there
So try Jesus
Don't try me
"