Yeah arguing for milquetoast liberal tolerance based on a work of fiction written by milquetoast liberals isn't much of an argument, except for the thesis that Hollywood is filled with milquetoast liberals
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @avram and
It's the same guys who were gonna do a TV show about an alternate universe where chattel slavery never ended and we get to see what a high-tech 21st-century Confederate States of America would look like How exciting, how fun Lots of morally gray dilemmas I'm sure
1 reply 2 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @avram and
I like how the Game of Thrones finale was so interested in these difficult themes of slavery and oppression that it gave us a detailed, thoughtful explanation of what the fuck happened to the Unsullied after Daenerys dies
2 replies 3 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @avram and
They totally didn't just send them to Naath where the other Black character comes from and completely forget about the thing where the toxic butterflies kill all foreigners I'm sure it all worked out
1 reply 1 retweet 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @avram and
Of course, I'm just an angry SJW nitpicker, which is why this is a minority opinion and the ending of Game of Thrones was so universally beloved and praised, to my great frustration as a lonely outnumbered critic
3 replies 1 retweet 37 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @avram and
Making the point that no one person, not even the seemingly best candidate, is fit to decide what is right and wrong by decree, without debate, is one of the few things I feel the GoT finale got right
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BotondBallo @arthur_affect and
Arthur has no power to back up a decree. If we each have the right to decide right and wrong for ourselves, then Arthur must have the right to decide that giving eugenacists the benefit of public debate is wrong.
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @avram @arthur_affect and
Recall that the original premise of this discussion was being "first-to-punch" even if someone merely had an offending viewpoint in their "decision tree". (1/4)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BotondBallo @avram and
So consider a person who has not yet come to a moral conclusion about a question related to (using your example) eugenics, and thus by definition has supporting it in their decision tree. (2/4)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BotondBallo @avram and
Is "punching" them (which I'm interpreting in this context as e.g. an immediate ban from an online community) the most productive approach? Or would something more rehabilitative, which could include convincing them via debate, be more productive? (3/4)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I might not literally physically punch them but I would say "Hey if you're seriously considering becoming a eugenicist I will never speak to you again and I will tell everyone else not to either, and you will be alone with no support" I have had rl conversations like this
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @BotondBallo and
And good for you, really. That’s how all conversations with Nazis (by whatever name) should go.
0 replies 1 retweet 6 likesThanks. 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.