Anonymous asked: I am confused by references to the "nasty activism and extremism" used against Michael Bailey, your suggestion that it may have been warranted under the circumstances, and your disclaimer that your argument does not justify "heaping abuse" against children for inconsequential offences. The specific "nasty activism and extremism" that you were saying "might be okay" was the heaping of abuse upon Michael Bailey's children (which was done because they were related to him).
James later fixed the part where she captioned Bailey’s children and replaced the pics with pictures of herself. The obviously correct thing would’ve been to use pictures of Bailey himself as a child. Alas, people are not always of sound judgment when their already weak position is attacked even further, in extremely disingenuous ways.
The “Bailey’s children can be categorized into two types: those that have been sodomized by Bailey, and those who haven’t” part was incredibly apropos for the context, and totally inappropriate too, and I don’t know if there would’ve been a way to do it without harming innocent people (it’s not the fault of Bailey’s children that they were born to such a PoS father).
But if there was a way to harm Bailey as much as those actions did, without harming the innocent children, I couldn’t bring myself to condemn it. However, the spillover effects James’ actions had on innocent people are condemnable.
TL;DR: In my opinion, what she did was shitty because it hurt people other than Bailey, not because it hurt Bailey. There are things that were done to Bailey himself which were shitty for being excessive even if they didn’t impact anyone else, but that one I wouldn’t consider one of them. It certainly wasn’t any worse than what Bailey himself had done.
2 weeks ago · tagged #meanness cw · 2 notes · .permalink
ozymandias271 liked this
metagorgon liked this
socialjusticemunchkin posted this