Obviously the readers don’t know the identity of the interviewee, but I feel like I can remain somewhat sympathetic before knowing their background. It’s the people I know with high level education and experience who infuriate me the most (the Pete’s of the world). Even if it’s fairly garden variety evil, why would you use your fancy degree to like sell more Pepsi or some shit, it’s ridiculous. When you need a job though, sometimes there’s no getting around it.
the former Fox News employee. They didn’t want to use their name for fear of retaliation.
but if they make meaningful contributions to society after you can judge them after.
I would just have people look at what I've done since.
He's right. We shouldn't be mad at this guy for the evil he admits he did until we look at the good we can never know he did or not because he's anonymous.
We never gave all the Nazi propagandists we hung at Nuremberg a chance to not be Nazis for a while, which is a great good that hardly anyone is capable of.
Anyway, it's very rich watching this guy worm around his fear of losing a job for his morals to a guy who deliberately and publicly did exactly that.
To un-godwin this a bit, and sort-of reply to Andrew above (without turning it to a flamewar)
What bugs me specifically about this interview is that we as a society seem to have lost the understanding of what an apology is. This could be my Catholic showing, but you are supposed to demonstrate:
1. An understanding of what you did wrong
2. An understanding of *why* what you did *was* wrong
3. An acknowledgement of fault, culpability, failure on your part
4. Sincere regret and contrition as well as a resolution to never do it again.
5. A desire to make things right.
I see 1, maybe 2, and an unprovable, zero-detail assurance from a guy who will always have 'professional liar' on his CV of 5.
This isn't an apology, it's apologia. This guy still thinks of himself as the hero of his life story, the protagonist, the good guy, therefore it's important to get out ahead of this bad PR and reclaim the narrative for his brand. Lest anyone get the wrong idea about what a great guy he really is, and make him socially suffer for it.
And while it's great that he understands he did bad things, he doesn't seem to understand that a bad person is a person who does bad things, for any reason. And that no amount of good done in one's life will ever un-do the bad that a person has done - he can never excuse or justify working for Fox News. Certainly not you're a working stiff and a fella's gotta eat, not in the airy-fairy world of moral theory, but also not in practice, because actual human journalists were faced with the same choice and chose correctly. Arendt and Adorno might be a good place to start for this guy who assures himself he's so much more intelligent and cultured than all the other people he worked with (who I'm sure salve their consciences by thinking the same thing about their co-workers, including him).
By this guy's need-justifies-evil logic, the second his bank account starts running down or the kid needs braces or something, he's completely justified in calling on his professional network and going back to making graphics for the Tucker Carlson Juden Rausch Hour Brought To You By Cash4Gold.com (godwin again, sorry). And none of us can say boo, because, well, he's got to make that money. And then when he quits again we all have to welcome him back, open arms. Because how can we know for sure that this time he doesn't REALLY mean it?
If we're ever going to fix this situation we're in, the left is going to need to become as harsh as the times and the enemies we face. The Christian ideal of perfect, unlimited forgiveness and love is great, but not if bad actors are using it to avoid their culpability in advocating for death camps. The benefit of the doubt is for people you don't know did stuff that is evil and hateful, not for people who have definitely done some bad shit, but might maybe be doing something good, or might maybe do something good in the future.
brb naming my home office 'the brainroom'
Obviously the readers don’t know the identity of the interviewee, but I feel like I can remain somewhat sympathetic before knowing their background. It’s the people I know with high level education and experience who infuriate me the most (the Pete’s of the world). Even if it’s fairly garden variety evil, why would you use your fancy degree to like sell more Pepsi or some shit, it’s ridiculous. When you need a job though, sometimes there’s no getting around it.
the former Fox News employee. They didn’t want to use their name for fear of retaliation.
but if they make meaningful contributions to society after you can judge them after.
I would just have people look at what I've done since.
He's right. We shouldn't be mad at this guy for the evil he admits he did until we look at the good we can never know he did or not because he's anonymous.
We never gave all the Nazi propagandists we hung at Nuremberg a chance to not be Nazis for a while, which is a great good that hardly anyone is capable of.
Anyway, it's very rich watching this guy worm around his fear of losing a job for his morals to a guy who deliberately and publicly did exactly that.
To un-godwin this a bit, and sort-of reply to Andrew above (without turning it to a flamewar)
What bugs me specifically about this interview is that we as a society seem to have lost the understanding of what an apology is. This could be my Catholic showing, but you are supposed to demonstrate:
1. An understanding of what you did wrong
2. An understanding of *why* what you did *was* wrong
3. An acknowledgement of fault, culpability, failure on your part
4. Sincere regret and contrition as well as a resolution to never do it again.
5. A desire to make things right.
I see 1, maybe 2, and an unprovable, zero-detail assurance from a guy who will always have 'professional liar' on his CV of 5.
This isn't an apology, it's apologia. This guy still thinks of himself as the hero of his life story, the protagonist, the good guy, therefore it's important to get out ahead of this bad PR and reclaim the narrative for his brand. Lest anyone get the wrong idea about what a great guy he really is, and make him socially suffer for it.
And while it's great that he understands he did bad things, he doesn't seem to understand that a bad person is a person who does bad things, for any reason. And that no amount of good done in one's life will ever un-do the bad that a person has done - he can never excuse or justify working for Fox News. Certainly not you're a working stiff and a fella's gotta eat, not in the airy-fairy world of moral theory, but also not in practice, because actual human journalists were faced with the same choice and chose correctly. Arendt and Adorno might be a good place to start for this guy who assures himself he's so much more intelligent and cultured than all the other people he worked with (who I'm sure salve their consciences by thinking the same thing about their co-workers, including him).
By this guy's need-justifies-evil logic, the second his bank account starts running down or the kid needs braces or something, he's completely justified in calling on his professional network and going back to making graphics for the Tucker Carlson Juden Rausch Hour Brought To You By Cash4Gold.com (godwin again, sorry). And none of us can say boo, because, well, he's got to make that money. And then when he quits again we all have to welcome him back, open arms. Because how can we know for sure that this time he doesn't REALLY mean it?
If we're ever going to fix this situation we're in, the left is going to need to become as harsh as the times and the enemies we face. The Christian ideal of perfect, unlimited forgiveness and love is great, but not if bad actors are using it to avoid their culpability in advocating for death camps. The benefit of the doubt is for people you don't know did stuff that is evil and hateful, not for people who have definitely done some bad shit, but might maybe be doing something good, or might maybe do something good in the future.