introduction

There has been a lot of hot takes lately. And hot takes about hot takes. And sentiment that we should all "be kind" which now apparently means "don't bring up hard things in the public place." And, most of all, excuse oppressive behavior, probably in the name of nuance.

I read another one of these articles by a relatively popular Apple developer and found myself wishing that we'd be OK with a bit more discomfort in the name of protecting those that are struggling to protect themselves. To be clear, those that need protecting aren't well known bloggers embracing questionable social media spaces and AI tools. Or big name apps that choose to invest in a "foundation" run by someone calling for ethnic cleansing. Or the (mostly) white guys that opt to try and protect them.

Several things annoyed me about the post I read. For one, it confuses the nature of a public and private space. For another, it assumes we can't influence one another for the better. And finally there is a footnote about "... an influential political dissident about casting the first stone." OK, here is the post if you want to read it: https://marco.org/2026/09/04/bob-and-van. I suppose I should include it since I quoted it.

personal space and public space

I think it's worth while to consider the spaces we occupy. Broadly speaking, we could divide them up like this:

• Intimate Space: 2-3 people. Our personal relationships
• Personal Space: 6-12 people. Friend groups and small gatherings
• Social Space: 20-70 people. Larger group settings where, importantly, identity is created.
• Public Space: 75+ people. Where numerous social spaces collide; identity flows based on how those spaces collide.

We can more easily probably divide these up into two: the more intimate personal spaces (1 & 2 above) where relationship happens and the more public spaces (3 & 4 above) where social identity forms.

The personal space is awesome for connection, conversations that matter, welcome to the neighbor and maybe, challenging tough beliefs. I can empathize with and care for a neighbor with a Trump sign in their yard while being fundamentally opposed to Trump in the hopes of forming enough relationship to offer a real challenge. We know who we are in those spaces and places and can protect from harm. And if harm did happen, we'd deal with it one to one rather than blasting anything publicly. This is where relationships with Bob and Van (to refer to the aforementioned post) happens. There's no reason to put them on blast in public spaces because that's not where the relationship is.

Public spaces are different. As mentioned above, public space create identity. People come together and, like some type of murmuration, take on a life of their own. This is where the idea of a nazi bar comes into play: if you let a neo-nazi into your bar and give them full rain to express their hateful beliefs you inevitably create a nazi bar where the neo-nazi identity rains; if you keep the neo-nazi out of the social space, you'll get a different form of identity based on the group gathered. What's left of twitter, like it or not, is a real time example of this: the furthest edges of the far right were given full rain of the place and now it's a mess of hate.

One significant way we create identity in public spaces is by creating bounds on what is acceptable, like, "Islamophobia (or transphobia or whatever) isn't acceptable here." It's also created in the ways that public spaces are disciplined. Sometimes this is outright offenses that happen in public that need to be dealt with in public. Sometimes this means shaming unacceptable behavior or beliefs. At a necessary extreme it might mean something like Strafgesetzbuch section 86a which outlaws certain symbols in most German public spaces.

the example of Jesus

As mentioned above, the author points to Jesus, specifically where He says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7) Using this passage in this way is frustrating. This passage describes a powerless woman, supposedly caught in adultery, used as a pawn to try an trip Jesus up. While Jesus was teaching, leaders dragged her to him asking what to do. Under the law of Moses, death was the punishment. The problem is that death isn't the punishment under Roman law. The leaders using this woman without care for who she is were just trying to get an excuse to have Jesus punished. He defuses the situation by refusing to directly answer and instead challenges the purity of the powerful not the purity of the powerless woman victimized by this situation. To flip the script so to speak and place the powerful in the place of the woman is gross.

Jesus is quite consistent in this regard of challenging power, standing for the oppressed and working intensely in public spaces. He:

• Fashions a whip and drives out the money changers exploiting people in the temple. (John 2 and Matthew 21 contain this story)
• called specific leaders evil and "a brood of vipers." (Matthew 12 has this one)
• elsewhere stands for poor widows victimized by specific officials (Mark 12 and Luke 21 speak to this)

Jesus consistently shames empire and the misuse of power; he calls others to it as well. The famous sermon on the mount talks about walking an extra mile and giving away your shirt (Matthew 5). While evangelical circles often use this passage to keep people passive and take whatever abuse comes their way something else is definitely going on here. Under Roman law, soldiers were allowed to ask someone to carry there stuff for up to a mile but no more; Jesus challenging the powerless to go an extra mile is a challenge to bring shame on that individual forcing them to walk. Likewise, nakedness brought shame on the viewers not the naked guy; offering more clothing than what was asked shamed those asking. Where power seeks to exploit, Jesus challenges His followers to flip the switch publicly draw attention and shame it.

I realize these stories might sound odd to modern ears; the way Jesus directly confronts power in public spaces should encourage us to do the same though in ways that are relevant to our context. His example never discourages this (much to the chagrin of powerful people who'd like to discourage people shaming, confronting and challenging their public actions).

wrapping it up

Ultimately it comes down to this: we influence other to be better in the ways we welcome in personal spaces, create identity that liberates in public spaces and challenges bad beliefs, like fascism in it all. If that's uncomfortable, there are spaces, like whatever twitter has become, that will give you a seat at the bar (and shove hate down your face as a "bonus"). Let's stop with the "nuance" and "fake kindness" crap and actively seek to create a better world (just as an ancient "political dissident" challenged us to).