A personal blog by Khürt Williams, with imagery, and inchoate ramblings on coffee, beer, and geekery.
And borrowing almost verbatim from Chris Aldrich:
I use this website as my primary hub for online presence and communication. I try to follow the principles of the IndieWeb movement by publishing on my own site and owning all of my own data. When I participate in social silos (Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.), I post here first and syndicate duplicates out to them (POSSE). These posts either originate from here or my social stream. You’re welcome to subscribe to or consume them in any manner or on any platform you prefer.
Now imagine two individuals who appear to be on opposite sides of a different matter. One aligns herself with what she calls the #MeToo movement; the other declares herself a critic of #MeToo. Yet digging deeper into their views on sexual harassment, it turns out that they are identical. They both believe workplaces ought to adopt policies that more effectively protect women from sexual harassment, and that there should be robust due process protections to guard against false accusations. They even agree on the language of their optimal policies.
What might explain their different postures toward #MeToo?
The first is focused on equilibriums. She believes that the status quo in American workplaces doesn’t adequately protect female workers, and that #MeToo is likely to improve things by shifting the equilibrium, making it marginally more friendly to working women. In contrast, the second is focused on limits. She frets that #MeToo is ending careers without adequate due process and enabling big injustices at the extremes. She worries that, left unchecked by opposition, it will spiral out of control.
Some Americans would feel less polarized and alienated from their fellow citizens if they recognized that some of the people fighting on “the other side” of a polarizing issue actually hold values and beliefs that are strikingly similar to their own.