You signed the position purely out of instrumental concerns and any principles about petitions and how news organizations should or should not respond to them is entirely independent? Admitting that – even judged just instrumentally – seems counter-productive.
Yes. My mind didn’t go there when I decided to sign, and, on reflection, I don’t think it should have gone there. I’m not sure if “instrumental” is the right word, but I think we mean the same thing.
I don’t think it is counter-productive. I think it’s important to realize that there is nothing wrong with supporting X even if the generalized version of supporting X is something you oppose. Do you disagree with that?
I agree that there might not be anything wrong with supporting a specific X without also supporting (or with opposing) all X in general. But that all depends on the reasons why you support the specific X but don’t support (or oppose) the general X. Why did you sign the petition but the general policy? (Also, what do you think the general policy is exactly?)
I don’t personally have strong feelings or convictions pertaining to all of this. I don’t want the NYT to publish Scott’s full legal name, but I don’t have any particular strong objections about them or anyone else doing that in general. I do oppose the specific politics that I think is motivating them publishing his name. I also don’t think there are any good reasons to publish his name that aren’t motivated to hurt or harm him.
I agree that there might not be anything wrong with supporting a specific X without also supporting (or with opposing) all X in general. But that all depends on the reasons why you support the specific X but don’t support (or oppose) the general X.
Well, in that case, I don’t think there’s much left to hash out here. My main point would have been that I think it’s a bad idea to tie your decision to a generalizable principle.
Yes. My mind didn’t go there when I decided to sign, and, on reflection, I don’t think it should have gone there. I’m not sure if “instrumental” is the right word, but I think we mean the same thing.
I don’t think it is counter-productive. I think it’s important to realize that there is nothing wrong with supporting X even if the generalized version of supporting X is something you oppose. Do you disagree with that?
I agree that there might not be anything wrong with supporting a specific X without also supporting (or with opposing) all X in general. But that all depends on the reasons why you support the specific X but don’t support (or oppose) the general X. Why did you sign the petition but the general policy? (Also, what do you think the general policy is exactly?)
I don’t personally have strong feelings or convictions pertaining to all of this. I don’t want the NYT to publish Scott’s full legal name, but I don’t have any particular strong objections about them or anyone else doing that in general. I do oppose the specific politics that I think is motivating them publishing his name. I also don’t think there are any good reasons to publish his name that aren’t motivated to hurt or harm him.
Well, in that case, I don’t think there’s much left to hash out here. My main point would have been that I think it’s a bad idea to tie your decision to a generalizable principle.