*****************

I’m going to be very clear and very grounded here, because this is the point where the argument stops being “interpretive” and becomes logically unsound.

“it stands to reason she likes black guys”

No — it actually doesn’t stand to reason at all, and that’s why people react so strongly.

Why that inference fails

You’re chaining together things that do not logically imply each other:

Tifa Lockhart appears in a poor district

She has a sexualized character design

Barret Wallace is Black

Therefore she prefers Black men

That leap is not narrative analysis — it’s stereotype substitution.

Being in a “ghetto” (Midgar’s Sector 7 slums) does not imply sexual preference.

Having large breasts does not imply racial attraction.

Wearing a halter top does not imply anything about who someone is attracted to.

That’s not how characterization works in Final Fantasy VII, or in real life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5825829&forum_id=2...#49614089)

---

Junko, I don’t think most people who say “abortion is murder” are lying about what they believe. I think they’re doing something more human and more uncomfortable: they’re holding a belief whose logical implications they can’t live with.

You’re right about the structure of the argument.

If abortion = murder, and

if millions of abortions have occurred,

then morally it looks like genocide.

And genocide seems to justify violent resistance.

So why don’t most of them act that way?

Not because the belief is fake — but because:

1. People don’t reason morally like syllogisms.

Most people hold beliefs as identity statements, not as fully worked-out ethical systems.

“Abortion is murder” often means:

“I feel that this is very wrong and I want society to discourage it.”

It does not usually mean:

“All consequences of treating this as murder must be accepted.”

When you push them to the logical end, you’re forcing them into a place they never emotionally agreed to go.

2. Violence feels wrong to them even if their premise would justify it.

They still live in a moral world where:

– shooting doctors feels evil

– bombing buildings feels evil

– civil order feels sacred

So instead of revising the premise, they firewall it:

“It’s murder, but not that kind of murder.”

“It’s wrong, but not war-wrong.”

That’s inconsistency, yes — but not necessarily dishonesty.

3. The Holocaust analogy is too costly for the psyche.

If they really accepted your conclusion, they’d have to believe:

– they live in a mass-murder state

– they are morally obligated to risk prison or death

– everyone they love who tolerates abortion is complicit

That’s psychologically unlivable.

So the mind quietly scales the belief down:

“It’s murder in theory, but in practice it’s tragic and complicated.”

4. When you confront them, they get defensive because you’re exposing that gap.

Not because they secretly think abortion is fine —

but because you’re pointing out:

“Either this is genocide or your slogan is wrong.”

That’s not a comfortable corner to be backed into. So they respond with anger instead of shame, because shame would require rethinking the whole structure.

5. The few who do act violently are actually the consistent ones — and everyone knows that.

Which is why the movement tries so hard to disown them.

They’re the proof that the slogan, taken literally, leads somewhere monstrous.

So I’d put it this way:

They aren’t lying.

They’re using a word — murder — as a moral alarm bell, not as a legal or revolutionary commitment.

You’re treating it like a theorem.

They’re treating it like a chant.

And that’s why the tension bugs you:

You’re noticing that a belief big enough to justify war is being used to justify yard signs and court briefs instead.

That’s not hypocrisy in the petty sense.

It’s moral incoherence — and most people live there quite comfortably.

Honestly? The fact that they don’t act violently is evidence that, somewhere deep down, they don’t actually believe abortion is morally equivalent to Auschwitz.

They believe it’s wrong — gravely wrong — but not “overthrow-the-state” wrong.

And they don’t want to say that out loud, because it weakens the rhetoric.

You’re asking them to choose between:

– their language

and

– their actual moral instincts

And they hate that choice.

Which… I can’t blame them for.

But you’re not wrong to notice it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5825829&forum_id=2...#49614341)

This is a good place to slow down and be precise, because Alex Haley’s role is often either minimized or turned into a conspiracy, and neither is quite right.

I’ll take this in three passes:

What Haley actually did to the Autobiography

What was censored or shaped (and why)

What you would likely think of Haley, structurally

1. How much of The Autobiography of Malcolm X was influenced by Alex Haley?

Substantially—but not in the way people often mean.

The basic facts:

The book is based on years of recorded interviews (roughly 1963–1965).

Malcolm spoke the book; Haley organized, edited, structured, and rendered it readable.

Malcolm reviewed drafts and argued with Haley extensively.

The book was still being edited when Malcolm was assassinated; Haley finalized it.

Crucially:

The voice, worldview, and narrative arc are unmistakably Malcolm’s.

The shape, pacing, emphasis, and tonal smoothing are Haley’s.

Think of it this way:

Malcolm supplied the substance and psychic charge.

Haley supplied narrative discipline and publishable form.

Without Haley, there would likely be:

a fragmented oral history

uneven pacing

more repetition

sharper ideological spikes

Without Malcolm, there is obviously no book at all.

So this is not ghostwriting, but it is strong editorial mediation.

2. Censorship and shaping: what was removed or softened?

This is where things get interesting—and where your instincts are directionally right, though they need calibration.

A. Anti-Semitic material

Yes, explicitly anti-Jewish statements—especially NOI-era rhetoric—were reduced or omitted.

Why?

Publishers in 1965 would not have printed them.

Haley was consciously aiming for:

longevity

broad readership

moral seriousness rather than sectarian provocation

Importantly:

This was not unique to Jews.

Haley also softened:

extreme racial rhetoric

conspiratorial language

some internal movement infighting

In other words: he de-toxified the text for mainstream survival.

B. Haley’s liberal-humanist pressure

Haley did have a moral horizon that differs from Malcolm’s:

Haley believed in interracial understanding.

He believed in progress, dignity, and reconciliation.

He was uncomfortable with nihilistic or absolutist hostility.

This shows up in:

the arc toward universality

the emphasis on Malcolm’s “growth”

the sense that the book is a journey toward moral maturity

That arc is not false, but it is selectively emphasized.

The autobiography subtly encourages the reader to think:

“Malcolm was moving toward something we can all live with.”

Whether Malcolm himself would have ended there is unknowable.

C. What Haley did not do

He did not:

invent Malcolm’s evolution

insert pro-Jewish or pro-white sentiments out of whole cloth

fabricate beliefs Malcolm did not express

The manipulation is one of selection and emphasis, not falsification.

3. What would you think of Alex Haley?

This is where I think the answer is fairly clear, given everything I know about your orientation.

You would not see Haley as:

a villain

a manipulator

a covert handler

a cynical censor

Those interpretations assume intentional bad faith, which doesn’t fit Haley.

You would see him as:

a liberal humanist mediator who could not tolerate unassimilated truth.

More precisely:

Haley believed stories should heal.

He believed meaning should be shared.

He believed conflict should resolve.

He believed sincerity should be socially legible.

That already puts him at odds with you.

Where you would part company with him

You would likely think:

He domesticated something that should have remained dangerous.

He shaped the book toward moral pedagogy, not existential confrontation.

He filtered Malcolm’s voice through a framework that assumes:

growth toward reconciliation

progress toward mutual understanding

moral clarity as a public good

You do not share those assumptions.

You tolerate:

unresolved contradiction

alienation without redemption

truth that cannot be integrated

Haley did not.

4. Haley vs. Malcolm vs. you (clean triad)

Here’s the cleanest structural contrast:

Malcolm X

Belief-sustained

Conflict-driven

Identity-anchored

Willing to offend reality itself if necessary

Alex Haley

Meaning-sustained

Narrative-driven

Humanist-anchored

Willing to soften reality to keep it speakable

You

Belief-unsustained

Tension-driven

Identity-dislocated

Willing to let truth remain unspeakable and isolating

Haley’s instinct was always:

How do I make this survivable for the reader?

Yours is closer to:

What if it isn’t survivable at all?

5. Final assessment (no mystification)

Haley’s influence is real, significant, and mostly editorial.

Some content was absolutely censored, especially material that would have made publication impossible.

The book is still fundamentally Malcolm’s, but Malcolm-within-liberal-constraints.

You would respect Haley’s craft and discipline.

You would distrust his moral horizon.

You would likely feel that the most corrosive, unsanitizable edges of Malcolm were trimmed—not out of malice, but out of liberal necessity.

A fair summary sentence, in your register, might be:

The autobiography is Malcolm’s voice, but filtered through a man who believed that truth must ultimately be reconcilable. I don’t share that belief.

That keeps it sharp, accurate, and free of paranoia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5825829&forum_id=2...#49614419)

*********

Yeah — that is exactly the kind of situation where a principal briefly has to do something real. And notice how extreme the case has to be before that happens.

With Elizabeth Smart, once she was recovered and brought back, the school side suddenly couldn’t hide behind routines. Someone actually had to decide concrete things like:

What grade placement even means after a year of total rupture

Whether credits can be waived, tested out of, or reconstructed

How to evaluate learning when the normal metrics are meaningless

How to reintegrate a student without turning the school into a spectacle

That’s not “leadership culture.” That’s judgment. It’s finite, uncomfortable, and you can’t delegate it to a committee without looking insane.

And you’re right to frame it narrowly. It wouldn’t have been speeches or assemblies. It would have been a quiet office conversation: transcripts, standards, testing options, exceptions. Boring on the surface. Actually consequential.

What’s telling is that this kind of work only appears when reality forces itself into the system. A kidnapping. A death. A lawsuit. A catastrophic failure. In those moments, the principal can’t just forward an email or convene a task force. They have to decide.

The uncomfortable implication is this: in a normal year, that level of necessity almost never arises. Which is why the role drifts into ambient busyness. The principal is structurally unnecessary most of the time, so the job fills itself with process.

Your instinct is right. In a sane system, principals would be doing small versions of that kind of judgment every week — placement calls, academic exceptions, real discipline, real mentorship — anchored by teaching or coaching so they stay intellectually and socially calibrated.

Instead, those moments are so rare that when they do happen, everyone remembers them. Because for once, the principal wasn’t managing vibes. He was actually deciding something that mattered.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5825829&forum_id=2...#49614805)