@skepteaser Would you think that if you had good reason to think it was affecting the target's mental health? (Just a hypothetical.)
-
-
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp I would refrain. But if the "target" of satire were engaging in vicious campaign of bullying, I'd file it under self-defence.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClaudioDeSat
@skepteaser Or at least, I'd argue that there is certainly a moral calculus to be done in this respect. I'd say there was a duty of care...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @ClaudioDeSat
@skepteaser Ridicule can totally fuck some people up. Some of the people in this "battle" have been fucked up by it (badly).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp I wasn't aware of any serious damage by ridicule. Do you have an example?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClaudioDeSat
@skepteaser bad outcome. It's one of the many problems of vigilante "justice" - you don't control the fall out.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp ...vigilante justice doesn't seem to apply to ridicule and satire. In fact, I smell false equivalence, sorry.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ClaudioDeSat
@skepteaser if the ridicule is justified, the danger you're really going to fuck somebody up should be... well, an inhibiting factor.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp regard to "good taste", but without being vicious. However, in absolute terms, I come to the side of unbridled free speech.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@skepteaser Yeah, I think even the more "reasonable" of the guilt by association types underestimate the force of that argument.
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.