But that would hold true in whatever culture that happened. The morality would be consistent.
I am saying that in the sense that one cannot claim to stand for LGBT rights if one only does so for white westerners.
-
-
If that disappears in relation to Pakistani or Ugandan LGBTs & u say 'Its their culture to oppose LGBT rights & we shld respect it'
-
Then your ethics are culturally relative & the principle 'stand for LGBT equality' doesn't really exist.
-
No, what it means is that that person is a lazy fuck and makes moral decisions based on literally no knowledge at all
-
Not so much a lack of knowledge but a fear of imposing western values on non-western cultures & that this is a kind of colonialism.
-
Well-intentioned but in practice leads to failing to support the liberals of that society coz no consistency.
-
Supporting the liberals of another society seems like a good thing to do as a cultural relativist. It is quite consistent with that idea.
-
How? I am a liberal. I support liberals everywhere regardless of culture. Opposite of cultural relativity
-
Cultural relativity: I am a liberal and I know what that means where I live. I have to defer to others for assessing morality abroad.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If White Westerners are the only kind of ppl someone is knowledgeable about, they better listen to people who are better informed.
-
For example, hear what Saudi women are thinking about their rights, and their oppression.
-
Its not that they don't hear. They hear other Saudi women saying the system is great &choose to support them. Postcolonialist guilt
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
