Sinead O’Connor has died at 56. Though a cause of death has not been formally confirmed, the presumption is suicide. In the public mind – particularly the American Gen X mind – O’Connor is famous for two things. First, her stunning, moving, (and in 1990, inescapable) cover of Prince’s
You have just laid out some things I have always shared but never properly put into words. I do not remove accounts and do not ban people on social networks. I just have always found it valuable to read people who are unlike myself.
One question to you still. What would you say about political provocations that have nothing to do with expressing views, but are a part of a targeted destabilization campaign? For exaple, a blogger payed for developing an anti-refugee narrative. In my opinion, such things do not contribute to freedom of discussion - on the contrary, they threaten freedom and distort discussion.
I think this is where we'll never agree because where you see "inconsistency" I see crucial and important moral differences in the reasons why actions are taken. People can commit the same act for different reasons and depending on those reasons it can be a good or evil act. The act itself is less the issue than the motivations behind it. Tearing up a photo of a beloved public figure to highlight the massive amount of child abuse committed by the organization they represent is inherently different in moral scale than tearing up a photo of MLK Jr because you're a white supremacist who opposes civil rights. One is an act meant to draw attention to a real problem that is hurting people and the other is an act meant to hurt people. To stand in the middle and say they're the same thing is like saying there's no difference between lifting a drowning person out of the water and pushing them back in because in both instances you're touching someone in water. The intent in these instances matters. Also, it's a mistake, I think to suggest that there's a direct line between this moment in her life and her passing. In an interview she made it clear that she had no issue with the consequences of her actions, because she didn't care about selling records. As she put it, it didn't change her plans, it changed the plans of the record executives who were riding her coattails with the hope of buying a beach house from the results.
Beautifully written, well thought through. Exactly what I enjoy about reading this author.
You have just laid out some things I have always shared but never properly put into words. I do not remove accounts and do not ban people on social networks. I just have always found it valuable to read people who are unlike myself.
One question to you still. What would you say about political provocations that have nothing to do with expressing views, but are a part of a targeted destabilization campaign? For exaple, a blogger payed for developing an anti-refugee narrative. In my opinion, such things do not contribute to freedom of discussion - on the contrary, they threaten freedom and distort discussion.
I think this is where we'll never agree because where you see "inconsistency" I see crucial and important moral differences in the reasons why actions are taken. People can commit the same act for different reasons and depending on those reasons it can be a good or evil act. The act itself is less the issue than the motivations behind it. Tearing up a photo of a beloved public figure to highlight the massive amount of child abuse committed by the organization they represent is inherently different in moral scale than tearing up a photo of MLK Jr because you're a white supremacist who opposes civil rights. One is an act meant to draw attention to a real problem that is hurting people and the other is an act meant to hurt people. To stand in the middle and say they're the same thing is like saying there's no difference between lifting a drowning person out of the water and pushing them back in because in both instances you're touching someone in water. The intent in these instances matters. Also, it's a mistake, I think to suggest that there's a direct line between this moment in her life and her passing. In an interview she made it clear that she had no issue with the consequences of her actions, because she didn't care about selling records. As she put it, it didn't change her plans, it changed the plans of the record executives who were riding her coattails with the hope of buying a beach house from the results.