First, it’s alienating to anyone who is insecure about whether they’re doing enough to help. “Oh no, am *I* useless? Am I the bad guy in this story?” No. The only possible “bad guys” here are those in positions of authority who are preventing effective response.
-
Show this thread
-
If you are an ordinary person who is staying home, taking care of your kids, or putting yourself on the line to do an essential job, you’re already a good guy. If you’re doing “a little” to help, your help matters.
2 replies 2 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
You *do not* want to demoralize the helpers. You want to encourage them to keep going, not get burned out, support each other. You want to make helping look *accessible* so more people do it. You want to recognize that different kinds of people can help.
1 reply 2 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
Secondly, and relatedly, “just put someone better in charge” is not that simple. The people who are currently in charge have their jobs for reasons. Someone chose to hire, elect, or appoint them. Those people probably don’t agree with you on who would be “better.”
5 replies 1 retweet 35 likesShow this thread -
It is a valuable informational service to accurately identify who fucked up. We used to call that “journalism.” It helps people decide whom they can trust and whom they can’t.
1 reply 3 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
It is not valuable, but rather wishful thinking, to say “someone should do X” unless you are specifically advertising to the potential someones.
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread
But why should there be a penalty? Being wrong about things is fine. We’re all wrong sometimes. The problem only arises when you’re wrong and you lead people into harm. If Joe Shmo is wrong, who cares?
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.