I will link the article at the end of this thread. But the premise was this: we often assume that violent people are morally adrift...
-
Show this thread
-
but what if that comes from our own moral bias? In other words, suppose the violent person *knows* that killing is morally wrong, so what?
1 reply 12 retweets 93 likesShow this thread -
Suppose both you and the killer are similarly morally aligned: killing is bad. But the killer simply doesn't give a damn. Then what?
3 replies 25 retweets 101 likesShow this thread -
The call to action is that we need much more than appeals morality to stop murderous, discriminatory violence.
1 reply 29 retweets 127 likesShow this thread -
This is why debating the Nazi never works: you have to assume they even give a fuck about a rhetorical trap. Or being called a hypocrite.
3 replies 78 retweets 248 likesShow this thread -
For them, reason and morality are wonderful virtues to uphold... after they do a genocide.
1 reply 30 retweets 146 likesShow this thread -
People who want to eradicate all Muslims don't actually care if you capture them mid-post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
3 replies 50 retweets 145 likesShow this thread -
But they sure as fuck will use that against you when it's convenient. This is why debating is a lost cause that doesn't scale.
2 replies 36 retweets 152 likesShow this thread -
Anyhow, this article was written in 2001 and I've carried its message with me for a long time.http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/26/local/me-42782 …
3 replies 46 retweets 135 likesShow this thread -
(nb: there was a version of this with a graphic ending that didn't make the final cut for the LA Times. I modeled my guardian op-ed from it)
-
-
(nb x2: apparently my anti-fascist praxis involves old af obscure op-eds)
2 replies 5 retweets 67 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.