Linky Friday: Outrage


Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website

Related Post Roulette

83 Responses

  1. Avatar bookdragon says:

    [LF16] Best response I’ve seen yet:

    When Suits Become a Stumbling Block: A Plea to My Brothers in Christ

    As a straight female I agree with every example of temptation (esp the pics of guys reading – c’mon are you *trying* to inspire lust?). She missed only one: guys snuggling puppies. Not THAT is an occasion for sin. 😉Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck says:

      yes, one indicator that you’re a responsible grown-up adult is definitely to react with snark and anger when someone asks you to wear pants in churchReport

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

        It isn’t the asking to wear pants because it’s church that’s the issue. It’s the whole, “you wanton hussies are all a lusty distraction for my angelic sons!”

        That’s what earns the snark.Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck says:

          Is she wrong, tho? Tight leggings *do* make it clear that there’s an ass in them, and teenage boys are not really known for their ability to keep their minds on task when there’s ass about.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

            Boys are also easily distracted by pretty faces though.

            Maybe women should wear veils.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck says:

              oh hi there Fallacy Of Excluded Middle how are you doing today

              bro, if you want a world where people Ain’t Give Two Shits Bout Yer Culcher’s Norms that’s cool, you go with that, but it’s kind of not the world you’ve been advocating for. Like, I’m pretty sure you’ve made arguments based on norms and on a community’s expected standards of behavior and on people’s preferred forms of interaction with them, and that’s exactly what’s going on here, but since it’s Sally Churchpants we’re pointing and mocking because LOL a white woman has an opinion.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

                The entire discussion springs from an excluded middle.

                If leggings are exactly as provocative as total nudity, then demanding a girl be clothed is exactly like demanding she wear a burka.

                Of course there is a middle ground in there somewhere.

                Are leggings so wildly provocative that they excuse boy’s misbehavior?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck says:

                “If leggings are exactly as provocative as total nudity…”

                nobody but you is…saying they are…?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

                The complaining woman is saying they are, if not exactly as provocative, at least provocative enough to excuse boy’s bad behavior.

                Which seems like she is excluding quite a lot of middle.Report

            • Avatar Pinky says:

              Of course women should wear veils in church.Report

            • Avatar Pinky says:

              The thing is, though, that faces aren’t the issue at Mass. You’re generally not facing the other person’s face; you’re behind the other person’s behind.Report

          • Avatar pillsy says:

            Teenage boys are not really known for their ability to keep their minds on their task.

            “If we all change our behavior, teenage boys will stop being distracted by thoughts of sex,” is not a very plausible theory.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck says:

              “this person is easily distracted”
              “therefore we should remove distractions from situations where we want them to pay attention”
              “how dare you suggest we do that, you ridiculous priggish prude”Report

              • Avatar pillsy says:

                “This person is so easily distracted that removing any individual distraction is likely going to have, at best, a marginal effect, and removing all distractions is impractical.”Report

              • Avatar bookdragon says:

                “Oh, I didn’t mean remove women or make them dress in burkas. How about we provide blinders to the guys who need that much help with visual distraction?”Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

                “If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out!Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                I’m easily distracted by offensive odors, do we really need to let the homeless people into the church during mass, they smell!Report

              • Avatar Murali says:

                I don’t know much about churches, but do they let homeless people in during mass?Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine says:

                Yes. Every Mass I’ve been to in a large city (globally) has been frequented by the homeless.Report

              • Avatar Maribou says:

                Yep, what Marchmaine said. And smaller cities too. I grew up going to a basilica in a town of 50,000, everyone was welcome during mass and both homeless people and smelly people attended regularly without interference. (non-coterminous categories, btw, I will note as someone who works in a service job where we *do* serve homeless people and *don’t* serve distractingly smelly people, though I know the original connection of that by Oscar was facetious.)

                I’ve only ever seen people asked to step out of Catholic Mass for being disruptive in a non-passive manner – and even then unless they were violent they were asked to go into a separate room where they could still hear the mass (hooray modern tech?). I’ve occasionally seen people asked to remove loud children from Episcopal services on the grounds that people couldnt’ hear the priest (again, to a separate room where they could still hear).

                Now, community shaming of people for non-active-disruption things (eg the originally linked article) can and does happen outside of Mass and does drive some people away from attending.

                BUT, I’ve never seen someone turned away or removed (in many different cities, in many different countries, in many different “styles” of church) for being distracting in a way that doesn’t physically interfere with or threaten other people.

                I mean, we had crying rooms and people took their babies into them, but *voluntarily* not coercively. And I’ve certainly been in masses where the baby was gonna cry the whole time, we were all gonna deal with it, and nothing at all was said to either parent. (Which is a lot more “distracting” than either leggings or smelly people, for me at least.)

                I often talk about my problems with the church (at least in RL, not so much on here), but on the issue of who gets turned out of services and who doesn’t, my experience has been uniformly positive, that is to say, inclusive.

                And I do watch to see what happens in these cases, and I know churches of other faiths where I’ve seen that handled really poorly, not just by the community *around* the service, but actually during the service. Nothing makes me want to walk out of a service faster than someone being treated poorly for not conforming to society’s norms, so I’m pretty aware of when it does and doesn’t happen.

                (I’m not saying it never gets handled poorly in Catholic contexts – just reporting my rather extensive experience.)Report

              • Avatar Pinky says:

                A lot of inner city Catholic churches have soup kitchens. They generally have strong relations with the homeless population. And you’re definitely more likely to find beggars around a religious service.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

            Very true, but the only way to learn how to keep your mind on task when faced with distractions is to experience those distractions while trying to keep your mind on task.

            Think of it as training for male adulthood. Those fit young women in leggings are performing a public service in teaching those teenage boys how to control their baser instincts. Now, if only the boys mother would do her part and smack the boys upside the head when their attention wanders after a shapely rear end…Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck says:

              “he only way to learn how to keep your mind on task when faced with distractions is to experience those distractions while trying to keep your mind on task.”

              that’s dandy but that’s also not the point of churchReport

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                Ya know, being the heathen that I am, it’s been a while since I’ve been to a catholic mass, but doesn’t it involve a lot of sitting in pews?

                As for the leggings themselves, I’d suggest that young men who can not help but be distracted by shapely young women are not going to be hindered in their distraction by anything less than a burka or muumuu.Report

              • Avatar Pinky says:

                There’s also a good amount of standing with your head bowed in prayer, meaning that your line of vision is aimed at the butt of the person two feet in front of you.

                So on this thread we’re talking about evolutionary psychology, and we’re also saying that young men shouldn’t notice young women’s butts in skin-tight pants?Report

              • Avatar bookdragon says:

                Huh. I generally close my eyes when praying…

                But honestly, I don’t see guys noticing a woman’s butt as all that problematic as long as they don’t act on that inappropriately. Let’s face it, guys notice women’s butts in skirts and dresses too. Do we need to go back to wearing bustles to help them avoid temptation?Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine says:

                Is there a place where we can vote yes on bustles? Not sure it helps with the temptation thingy, but as long as yer askin’.Report

              • Avatar veronica d says:

                There are groups into historical costuming and such. You’d likely find bustles there.Report

              • Avatar bookdragon says:

                If you want to wear a bustle, I won’t stop stop you. 🙂Report

              • Avatar Marchmaine says:

                “If you want to wear a bustle, I won’t stop stop you.”

                Well, then, we are much obliged.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels says:

                Mmm, bustles…baby got back.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                meaning that your line of vision is aimed at the butt of the person two feet in front of you

                Or it’s aimed at your feet, kinda depends on where you aim it now, don’t it.

                See, reading this, it sounds less like her boys are distracted, than she doesn’t like that her boys are thinking about girls shapely bottoms at church. Which makes this her problem, and no one else’s.Report

              • Avatar Maribou says:

                “kinda depends on where you aim it now, don’t it.”

                That’s the thing.

                I mean, I certainly had a lot of potential to be distracted by a lot of butts in my teenage churchgoing days. Boy butts, girl butts…

                You know what I did? I made sure to look at the prayerbook or the pew or close my eyes or whatever. It was *pretty damn easy* – even during the days when boys would come to church wearing sagging jeans that showed a good inch or more of their underwear (which I noticed but wouldn’t write a damn article about, then or now) – not effortless but not any harder than any of the other social norms required by a Catholic service. I mean, it’s a lot less distracting then remembering when to do what with your own body, unless you get told over and over and over that training yourself to not stare and fantasize when your mind should be elsewhere is some impossible task….

                Girls (and actually MOST boys in this day and age) aren’t told it’s an impossible task so they don’t blame someone else when they are less than perfect at doing it, they just do it without a whole lot of effort.

                It is easier than remembering how the hymns and missals work, easier than kneeling and standing at the right times…

                And I say that as someone who is infinitely distractible by butts when I don’t consider it unacceptable to be so.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

                So on this thread we’re talking about evolutionary psychology, and we’re also saying that young men shouldn’t notice young women’s butts in skin-tight pants?

                Of course they should! Hell, I notice shapely women in leggings all the time while I’m driving, yet somehow I have incredibly low insurance rates because I’m able to keep my attention on the road.

                Now, if I was in a church, and had somehow not caught fire or been otherwise smote, and in prayer with a fine ass in front of me, not only would I be able to appreciate said fine ass, I would also be able to continue reciting the prayer. And if the ass was too distracting, and the prayer was that important, I would close my eyes.

                See, the whole reason this is utter BS is because this woman is pissed that her sons are young men, interested in young woman, and too distracted by a set of curves to keep their minds on the serious business of prayer.

                Which makes all of this her problem.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck says:

                This is not a response to my post.Report

              • Avatar Michael Cain says:

                I’d suggest that young men who can not help but be distracted by shapely young women are not going to be hindered in their distraction by anything less than a burka or muumuu.

                It has been a long time since I was a teenaged boy, but my recollections are the fact that girls existed was enough to cause distracting thoughts. Which made it very much my problem, not theirs.Report

      • Avatar veronica d says:

        Leggings are pants.Report

        • Avatar dragonfrog says:

          Alternately, in response to “leggings aren’t pants” statements, I sometimes go with “indeed, leggings, skirts, kilts, lederhosen, sarongs, and togas are all examples of appropriate garments for the lower body that aren’t pants. ” I can go either way on that, really.Report

      • Avatar bookdragon says:

        First, her ‘boys’ were in college and presumably capable of not walking into trees because girls wear leggings on campus. Second, if it was really that bad, wouldn’t the priest be the one to ask them to dress differently?

        I have a 15 yr old son. He laughed at the idea that a mom would feel the need to write this sort of thing. “Leggings can draw your eye, but too super distracting to not stare when you’re sitting next to your mom in church? Wow, do Catholics never go to the beach?”Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck says:

          if church happened at the beach that would be relevantReport

          • Avatar bookdragon says:

            His point being that even guys his age learn not to get so easily distracted and even in settings where women are wearing much more revealing clothing.Report

          • Avatar Maribou says:

            @densityduck Church does happen at the beach. Regularly. Including Catholic church. Their church might not happen at the beach but there’s no need to be unnecessarily reductive about church just to win a dumb argument about leggins.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck says:

              so church happens at the beach sometimes and therefore we can’t expect any particular level of decorum from anyone, got it.Report

        • Avatar Pinky says:

          I don’t know if this is a tangent or not, but I basically grew up at the pool, and I’ve never found women in swimsuits appealing. They’re utilitarian outfits. A little bit of leg showing under a long skirt is more provocative than a bikini bottom to me. I also don’t find leggings attractive. They strike me as trashy.Report

          • Avatar bookdragon says:

            From my side of the gender divide, I agree. Overall, I find nicely worn in jeans on a guy more appealing than most swim trunks.

            However, I assume the Sports Illustrated swim suit edition is so popular for some reason, and there are a lot of other magazines better positioned to market swimsuits to women.Report

            • Avatar Pinky says:

              I think that personal tastes matter, but so does context. Two stories come to mind. One was from a supermodel – Cindy Crawford maybe? – where she took a meeting topless. She was on vacation, at a topless beach, and I don’t remember how the business discussion got started, but it just sort of evolved. She didn’t have a top nearby. Another story comes from P.J. O’Rourke, writing about when he was in the Middle East, and a kid came up to him selling “dirty” black and white photos of a woman in a 1920’s swimsuit. He looked at the photos and blushed.Report

              • Avatar bookdragon says:

                This is true. When my grandmother was a little girl, a woman showing – gasp! – a bare ankle would have been considered just as distracting as one in leggings now, if not more so.

                Makes me wonder how this sort of thing plays out in nudist colonies.Report

    • Avatar Morat20 says:

      As a man, I’m deeply offended by the number of people who seem to think my gender lacks agency and self-control.

      I did fine. My peers did fine. My son did fine. My brother did fine. My cousins did fine. That’s because we were all actual people, who were entirely responsible for our actions and deeds.

      If your kid finds the sight of a woman in leggings too distracting to handle, keep your kid at home. It’s not her problem, it’s his. He’s got agency,

      “My poor, helpless boys! Slaves to their programming! While will those nubile young women, the ones with free will, not understand how the poor boys, with their lack of free will, are hurt by them?”

      Every time this crap comes up, it’s the same thing every time. It’s not “What the hell is wrong with the boy” it’s “Why was she dressed like that? Why was she there? Why wasn’t she better!”.

      And most of the time it’s from men, no less.Report

      • Avatar veronica d says:

        This has nothing to do with boys, however. It’s about the woman herself, and how she has projected her own discomfort under the guise of protecting impressionable young men.

        The thing is, the young men in question didn’t say anything. As far as we know, they have a perfectly healthy attitude to attractive women in yoga pants — which is to appreciate beauty in a respectful way. And yes, indeed, I believe that adolescent men are capable of that, even if they probably fall short sometimes.

        Let’s be real. It’s very unlikely that this women is honestly motivated by protecting young men. Instead, she is revealing her own shallow preoccupations, which likely stem from some unfortunate mixture of envy and disgust.

        tl;dr — This has nothing to do with boys. The old killjoy is either a fuddy duddy or just a jelly donut. Ignore her. Mock her. Whatever. No young women should spend much time worrying about the squacks of madam sourpuss.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 says:

          Of course it has nothing to do with boys. We do have free will. It’s not something we traded away for a dick.

          But it’s always the same refrain, no matter who it’s coming from. “Won’t you think of the poor boys” like we’re slaves to our hormones, unable to consciously act. Mindless, rutting animals.

          She’s flat out insulting an entire gender with her words, and she’s not remotely the only one. There’s a lot of feedlines into toxic masculinity, and this sort of thing is a big one, the assumption that a horny man is mindless and incapable of control, and that if a man is horny it’s a woman’s fault.Report

  2. Avatar DensityDuck says:

    [LF6] hey awesome, the end result of call-out culture is that we’ve bred a race of sociopaths. “fuck you, you ain’t me, you ain’t kin, I ain’t even know you, why I care what you say?”Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

      It was either that, or a race of sheep to afraid to bleat for fear of upsetting the herd. And us humans are still a rather ornery and self-centered lot, despite centuries of effort to make us otherwise.Report

    • Avatar James K says:

      It’s not sociopathy. Humans have never been expected to care about what random strangers they will never meet think of them. One of the problems with the internet is that we’re trying to deal with it using a social brain that only ever had to track the couple hundred people whose opinion of you mattered for your day-to-day survival.

      Trying people int he court of public opinion isn’t going to lead to justice, I know people too well to believe that.Report

  3. Avatar DensityDuck says:

    [LF10] Seems to me that the guy will forever more be known as That Dude Who Paid Guys To Beat Him Up and that he doesn’t really need more punishment than that. Continuing to prosecute would be a waste of everyone’s time, and he’s already wasted quite a bit of everyone’s time.

    “but he’ll get away with it!” Get away with *what*? He *wanted* to have a movie-star job forever, because who would want the ration of shit from firing A Victim Of A Hate Crime? He definitely won’t get that now. What’s he gonna get away with?Report

    • Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

      Probably, but the whole thing stinks of a payoff or other interference. Less famous people have done such things to waste everyone’s time and not enjoyed such mercy.

      The DA didn’t have to drop the million pound shit hammer on him, but he could have given him a couple hundred hours of community service for being a dumbass and everyone would have probably been satisfied with that.Report

      • Avatar DensityDuck says:

        And then he lawyers up to avoid having an actual criminal conviction on his record, and the city has to spend MORE money nailing his dumb ass down, and he might not even get convicted of anything if he can claim convincingly enough that, in that moment, he genuinely thought he was being attacked. I’ll take the W we’ve got.Report

        • Avatar pillsy says:

          Also like I dunno, the idea that nothing incredibly embarrassing about Chicago law enforcement or an Illinois prosecutor’s office is gonna come out during the proceedings seems like kind of a long shot.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird says:

            Therefore, we should be calling for…?Report

            • Avatar pillsy says:

              Depends on whether you want to watch a 17 dimensional train wreck unfold in real time.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Always a fan of those, but I was wondering if there were some theoretical moral or ethical considerations.Report

              • Avatar pillsy says:

                It means there’s a real likelihood that Jussie Smollet might actually come out of this in a better situation than he is in now, despite his own wrongdoing, as malfeasance on the part of agents of the state comes to light.

                That definitely pushes me towards, “Let’s do it and be legends!” because I worry less about Smollet getting away with whatever the hell he thought he was trying to do than I do about law enforcement getting away with whatever they the hell they thought they were trying to do.

                And I suppose if Smollet winds up in more trouble because the Chicago PD and the prosecutor’s office didn’t do anything that’s cause for humiliation or worse, that’s also an entirely acceptable outcome.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird says:

                Fair enough.

                I think that Jussie is kinda crazy. It’d be one thing if he got found out and then slunk away in shame. If he apologized and talked about the importance of “starting a conversation of how hateful Trump and his supporters are”.

                But “I did nothing wrong!” means that the cops did stuff wrong and now it’s time for sunshine to get in there and do its thing.

                But I suspect that the most likely outcome is that Jussie comes out much worse, we find out that Chicago cops have black sites and a *LOT* more cameras looking at a *LOT* more people than even the politicians knew about, and the thing that will piss everybody off is Jussie’s audacity rather than the Orwellian thing that the cops have going on.

                They’re fighting against crime, don’t you know.Report

    • Avatar Pinky says:

      An ordinary person has to go to jail, but a famous person falling from grace is punishment enough? No, thanks.Report

      • Avatar DensityDuck says:

        I don’t know why you think this is going to go so easily. Dude may have been on the outs but he’s still got money, certainly enough to hire someone competent who can make the cops look like bastards and the whole thing look like they’re trying to railroad him for making a scene. Remember that these are criminal charges, here, not a “preponderance of evidence” civil case.

        I mean, they got freakin’ OJ Simpson off and he was practically still stabbing the corpses when the cops ran in, do you think they’ll have trouble with this one? “Well I guess I didn’t take notes when I was being punched in the head, so I can’t give a complete and accurate transcript of what the attackers said. I remember a lot of yelling and I couldn’t really tell what they were saying, and I kinda figured that me being black and out meant that the two guys who jumped me had that in mind, y’know? Of course I called the cops after, wouldn’t you? Oh, these two dudes say I hired them? Yeah, they’d just got arrested, they’d say they were workin’ for Richard Nixon it if they thought it’d get them off.”

        And, speaking of OJ Simpson, how many movies has he been in lately? Not many? Welp. Maybe social punishment works after all.Report

        • Avatar Pinky says:

          I recognize that Smollett is experiencing punishment. One could even say that he lost 40% of his hitpoints via public humiliation, and that would match the damage that a poorer person would take by serving a few months in prison. Proportionate justice may have been served. But that’s a terrible approach for a society based on a system of laws. We’ve all seen cases where a politician is punished for taking bribes by losing a committee seat, or an athlete is punished for domestic abuse by a four-game suspension. I much prefer equal justice under the law.Report

          • Avatar DensityDuck says:

            I recognize that he made you mad and you want him to get hurt for that. I mean, it was such a good story, wasn’t it? And then it turns out to all be bullshit, well. That’s a tough one to get over.Report

            • Avatar Pinky says:

              Dude, it was obviously false from the start. I laughed the first time I heard it. Didn’t you? And I don’t want him hurt for it. He could tell people that story all day, and I’d laugh at it every time. He filed a false police report, and I want the law applied evenly on that regard.Report

      • Avatar bookdragon says:

        He set up a fake crime, filed a false police report, and wasted a lot of PD time. He should absolutely pay for that. If a judge wants to impose a heavy fine and community service instead of jail time, I guess that’s par for the course for a lot for rich or folks, but he shouldn’t get off with just ‘gee, that was really embarrassing and might have hurt your career.’Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck says:

          how do we get there, though?

          This is not like a parking ticket. This is a crime; formal charges must be filed and there must be a trial, and trials don’t always go the way you want. The judge doesn’t get to just say “well there’s been a lot of stuff in the newspapers so in my judgement you’re guilty”, unless it’s a bench trial (which it will not be).

          And if you’re worried about waste of resources then why are you suggesting the City of Chicago throw more resources into this particular hole?Report

          • Avatar bookdragon says:

            This person will hire expensive lawyers and fight the case in court therefore let’s let him off?

            That seems like a really terrible precedent to set.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck says:

              you seem really weirdly obsessed with having the cops go after a nonviolent black manReport

              • Avatar bookdragon says:

                I’m not particularly obsessed with this case one way or the other. I certainly won’t be flyign to Chicago to protest or even signing online petitions. 😉

                I am advocating for equal treatment under the law. I also think the white lady in Em’s recent post who filed a false police report should face charges.Report

              • Avatar PD Shaw says:

                The newly elected mayor, an African-American lesbian, has said Smollett must be held accountable, which I assume means that the civil/ordinance lawsuit will go forward after Rahm is gone.Report

          • Avatar PD Shaw says:

            Formal charges did not need to be filed; that’s within the prosecutor’s discretion. Charges should not be filed if they don’t have the evidence to support it or if they don’t feel the crime is worth the resources of a prosecution.

            Filing charges, impaneling a grand jury, committing the city police to continue building the case, and then simply dropping the case was schizophrenic. Not meeting with the referring agency (city police) first was unprofessional. Not utilizing established diversion programs, exposed the city and county to lawsuits and the prosecutor to reasonable claims of corruption.Report

  4. Avatar Pinky says:

    LF2: Does Baltimore deserve a better mayor? Does any democracy deserve better elected officials? Imperfect information results in sometimes picking a bad candidate, but if it happens regularly, then people are getting the leaders they deserve.Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Hey, does anybody have any evidence that LF1 has any grounding in how people actually behave?Report

    • Avatar Marchmaine says:

      From the article: ” Our point is that the presence of strategic motives does not itself make a moral reaction inauthentic.”

      Vindicates my entire project of hypothetical counter outrage for future plausible deniability. Or wait, maybe that does make my moral reaction inauthentic.Report

    • Avatar Pinky says:

      I just looked at the article. I expect lousy writing in the NYT, but that was horrible. If the question is whether outrage is authentic or “merely” / “just” strategic, the answer can’t be “both”. If it’s merely virtue signalling, then it can’t be partially something else. It reminds me of the common usage of the word “coincidence”. When we use it, we’re implicitly saying that something is merely coincidental. But something can’t be both merely coincidental and on purpose. Am I overreacting? No. The entire article was about whether there’s a distinction between genuine and simulated outrage. This article is written nonsensically.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        Part of the fundamental problem is that there are matters of taste and maters of morality.

        People mix them up all the time. I’m sure we can all think of examples of how people mistook a matter of taste for what was really a matter of morality (or confusing what we know is a matter of morality for what they thought was merely a matter of taste).

        It’s when they start yelling and screaming after making a mistake and passing laws and enforcing norms that we start having problems.