Post #2581934

2026-04-15 08:48 UTC

@ZDL@mstdn.social So my favourite example here is Greta Thunberg. There are ways you can discuss whether or not she's supporting the right causes or in the right way that I'll be fine with. But she's autistic. That means something the vast majority of people do not get: she is motivated by an *unyielding* moral code. It is "physically" impossible for her to moderate her methods in a way that is more palatable if this led to compromising on that code. I get that people don't like that, but for the most...

Replies (2)

@ZDL@mstdn.social 2026-04-15 08:51

@jens@social.finkhaeuser.de And such people are great for kick-starting movements. The infamous sex pest Richard Stallman seems to share that impossibility to temper his statements and actions as well. But there comes a point where this is counter-productive and causes damage to movements in the long run. There has to be a way of moving these "social entrepreneurs" (to coin a term) out to pasture or toward other issues where their inflexibility is an asset, not a detriment.

Open ##2581935
@jens@social.finkhaeuser.de 2026-04-15 08:52

@ZDL@mstdn.social ... part, this is because most people have a malleable moral code. No, that is unfair. The moral code is probably relatively stable. But the relationship most people have with the truth is very shaky. If the truth doesn't fit your moral code, then folk tend to adjust how they interpret the truth. Someone like Greta cannot (in the same way/to the same extent). That is what makes her so uncomfortable to so many people. Besides, method moderation is just tone policing in a trenchcoat 😜

Open ##2581939