Right, the indefensible part of the argument isn't arguing whether or not Scott is racist, or whether or not him being racist impacts his ability to provide mental health care It's the part where SCOTT'S PATIENTS CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT THEMSELVES
-
-
Talking about things people don't want talked about is a delicate matter Doing it for its own sake is, sure, just being a jerk But there obviously exists a countervailing ethical pressure where you have to ask "How many people would be upset to know they were ignorant of this"
-
It's normally no one else's business if someone cheats on their spouse, but if that person is famous, if they're a church pastor, if they write self-help books about relationships, if they get praised as a "role model" Then it starts being other people's business
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Straw man. The claim was never that journalists had to publish what Scott wanted. Just this one piece of irrelevant information.
-
Okay, so, defend the idea that this claim doesn't generalize. What precisely makes sharing this information unethical where sharing other information is ethical?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This whole argument reminds me of the (slightly bizarre) rule at Wikipedia that it's a community violation to publicly acknowledge (on or off site) a Wikipedian's off-site identity if that Wikipedian doesn't want it acknowledged, *even if it is widely known*.
-
I've been talking all day about how absurdly self-serving online communities are about this shit The story of u/violentacrez on Reddit should speak for itself -- "doxing" him was in Reddit's eyes far far worse than him running r/Creepshots
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.