Add new comment

It seems like it is personal for both of us, mate. That's allright, most debate actually are.

1. Is what you said ("ostracism is the only weapon of the almost completely powerless or else it's a mercy, rather than more extreme measures") more than your opinion? If it isn't, then I don't know why should I back my opinion more than what you do. If it is, then back it up and I will do too.

2. You actually have a point. I was lazy. I'll try harder and do better.
"Why shouldn't people treat you harshly based on what you did?"

2a. But what does it means? If it means putting me in jail, for example, then no, people shouldn't. If it means my boyfriend hitting me for coming home late at night, then no, he shouldn't. If it means my boyfriend leaving me because i hit him, then i have no troubles with that. But your question is too vague.

2b. What is more akin to cop-like mentality, though, is being abusive towards someone *in the name of the greater good* (or protecting the weak, or correcting their character, or anything like that). And that is what Gillis promotes in its article.

3. You are not describing ostracism. You are describing cutting ties (individually or collectively) with someone. What ostracism means is more than that: it is a group dynamic where the leaders of a group decide that everyone should cut ties with the someone in question, otherwise they will be ejected from the group too. What Gillis says is "we should pressure as much people as possible to cut ties with bad people and threaten to cut ties with them if they don't". And that is abuse. As you say, voluntary association is a classic anarchist principle, and nobody should be pressured to break relationships (as they shouldn't be pressured to maintain relationships).
And saying that some people should be treated like that for the greater good because they are so bad that they shouldn't be allowed to exist in society is supremacist.
But you have the right to say you don't wanna hang out with someone. Why do you think I would be against that?

4. Your first feedback was that my text was full of assumptions. Please take a step back and look at how yourself are assuming a lot of stuff about me and my motivations. I am pretty sure you met a lot of people using "circular logic" to justify a lot of bad behavior, and it stick with you. But maybe that is not what is happening right here? At least, can you notice that I am not justifying anyone's bullshit here?

Finally, something doesn't have to be "the worst thing to happen to a person" to be bad. Yes, sometimes leaving each other alone is the best thing that can happen. But notice that ostracism is not "leaving each other alone". Organizing campaigns to exile someone while refusing face-to-face dialogue is not "leaving them alone". At all.