Self Defense: imorgen

Ah, here we go again (he can't mind me linking like that surely, since he spams his own blogs at every opportunity).

It's telling that there are apparently two camps, "those who have asked "Are you really leaving?" and followed it up with kind words", and then "everyone else" aka "you people" (horrible and/or ignorant). The "private" bit does also seem a tad ironic in light of his contacting people, often with huge assumptions, then posting their private responses all in relation to himself.

Oh neat, new word.

I get the point, and I'm sure to some I meet the definition, but allow me to pose a hypothetical relating to the ethic of keeping your mouth shut while exiting.

Lets start with the extremely obvious. I see a bomb hidden under the counter at a crowded bank, the counter reads 5 minutes, I exit silently, the bank explodes killing five. Ethical?

Of course not. But this is hardly a crowded bank and its not like lives are directly on the line. I produce that example simply to illustrate the point that in some situations it is indeed appropriate, perhaps even morally urgent to announce one's exit and reason for said exit, and in others its not.

The question then becomes which is the case here?

My exit of the stumble upon community with regard to providing content and thus profit for them, is based on what I consider to be a destructive attitude towards civil liberty and freedom of expression generally, like the employer who fires everyone who refuses a drug test. Sure its legal, but are there not larger freedom related implications? Think of it like a boycott.

I follow the logic of an employer being able to do as it please on its own private property, and while I disagree with an abstract noun being given the same rights as me, I do understand the position. But the matter becomes ethically complicated when you note that all employers can engage in this behaviors and most people must be employed. Suddenly Corporate law becomes defacto criminal law and if you do not conform you pay your fine for violation of said law in opportunity costs.

My point is that my exit was not merely a gambit for attention to myself, but attention to a series of social problems of which SU policy and the attitude of its most popular posters is merely a symptom.

Innomen as a stumbler identity has in a fundamental way, died. I'll admit that he could rise again, depending only on my mood, but if that's not the case, does he not deserve last words?

There is no deceit here. When I wrote that post I felt that way, and I still do. As I explain in the post I still use the inbox and the send/receive url function. I am automatically notified when I get a new review, as any experienced stumbler knows.

I like blogspot better for the purposes of self expression. It has a clean and easy to use interface, and that's because of course it is made for what I'm doing with it.

It's telling that there are apparently two camps, "those who have asked "Are you really leaving?" and followed it up with kind words", and then "everyone else" aka "you people" (horrible and/or ignorant).

Not at all, and you know better.

The "private" bit does also seem a tad ironic in light of his contacting people, often with huge assumptions, then posting their private responses all in relation to himself.

I respect the respectful. I post what I feel is ethical and relevant. This can take the form of me not caring about what someone thinks, and me caring deeply about what someone thinks.

If a person talks to me and I talk back I own my responses. I have permission to post everything I've ever posted of someone else, even though I don't see any ethical need to acquire said permission. If someone doesn't want me to post their words and my responses, I create a hypothetical version of the conversation with no identifying bits.

You seem reaching, if you read more of my work I'm sure you'll find something easier to tear down if you're looking to troll for whatever reason.