I see what you're saying (and I read much of the subthreads here) and I think you're entirely wrong in this case.
Many people probably agree with you in general about compassion, second chances, and avoiding cruelty, but don't think that applies here because they or their friends have had experience with this particular individual stretching back to more than a decade ago, have seen him repeat these behaviors over and over, and feel it's become useless to bother considering things like second chances anymore. But that's been discussed already in this subthread, so leave that aside for now.
What you're really missing is the positive value of a post like this, and the importance of welcoming it.
First, if you haven't already read it, please read my post on saying things in public. It's an important part of what I'm going to try to say in this comment, so I'm going to assume now that you've read it, and continue.
Now the key part: People were doing their part to say that kind of thing in public, and JonMon attempted to use the legal hammer to silence them. What's more, he's already previously apparently succeeded at doing exactly that. Various things about him on the Internet have been removed, and we know that in at least one case, they were the writings of someone he sued and won a default judgement against. Now again with this new lawsuit, we began to see some content being removed.
What people are reacting to, I think, is this attempt to silence them, their friends, or the community that seeks to warn them of something worth warning them about. If this succeeds, people will be more afraid to talk about it with respect to other people, not just JonMon. It's a real risk, and a harm to the community. It also feels infuriating when someone tries to silence you or your friends about something you think it's important for them to be able to talk about.
So what you call "needless cruelty" is actually people reacting by being louder when someone tries to silence them. That's not needless. It's an important signal: "if you try to use power to silence us, we'll be louder". It's also a very understandable emotional reaction.
Being entertaining serves a purpose. Parody and satire serve a purpose. They communicate in ways that aren't easily available otherwise. Furthermore, they encourage others to look. Rather than having a debate in a subthread few people will notice, a clever and entertaining satire like this song will get people to share it.
What you're trying to do is tell people that they should not express themselves in an effective way. That they should be more careful and guarded and limited in what they say and how they say it. In this context, your words are therefore in support of the harm that my post was talking about. You're promoting a message that will increase harm, rather than reduce it.
no subject
Many people probably agree with you in general about compassion, second chances, and avoiding cruelty, but don't think that applies here because they or their friends have had experience with this particular individual stretching back to more than a decade ago, have seen him repeat these behaviors over and over, and feel it's become useless to bother considering things like second chances anymore. But that's been discussed already in this subthread, so leave that aside for now.
What you're really missing is the positive value of a post like this, and the importance of welcoming it.
First, if you haven't already read it, please read my post on saying things in public. It's an important part of what I'm going to try to say in this comment, so I'm going to assume now that you've read it, and continue.
Now the key part: People were doing their part to say that kind of thing in public, and JonMon attempted to use the legal hammer to silence them. What's more, he's already previously apparently succeeded at doing exactly that. Various things about him on the Internet have been removed, and we know that in at least one case, they were the writings of someone he sued and won a default judgement against. Now again with this new lawsuit, we began to see some content being removed.
What people are reacting to, I think, is this attempt to silence them, their friends, or the community that seeks to warn them of something worth warning them about. If this succeeds, people will be more afraid to talk about it with respect to other people, not just JonMon. It's a real risk, and a harm to the community. It also feels infuriating when someone tries to silence you or your friends about something you think it's important for them to be able to talk about.
So what you call "needless cruelty" is actually people reacting by being louder when someone tries to silence them. That's not needless. It's an important signal: "if you try to use power to silence us, we'll be louder". It's also a very understandable emotional reaction.
Being entertaining serves a purpose. Parody and satire serve a purpose. They communicate in ways that aren't easily available otherwise. Furthermore, they encourage others to look. Rather than having a debate in a subthread few people will notice, a clever and entertaining satire like this song will get people to share it.
What you're trying to do is tell people that they should not express themselves in an effective way. That they should be more careful and guarded and limited in what they say and how they say it. In this context, your words are therefore in support of the harm that my post was talking about. You're promoting a message that will increase harm, rather than reduce it.