Neither the Wolves nor the Scars are the least bit "individualist" in the sense they mean (alienated American capitalism etc) Weirdly, people seem to think that a "collectivist" society means an inherently virtuous society, valuing the greater good of all humanity
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
And like lol no absolutely not If that's what a collectivist society is then there has never been one in the history of the world and there probably never will be In fact the very essence of collectivist societies is loyalty to your people and therefore distrust of foreigners
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
It is, very clearly, Abby's idiosyncratic decision to take in Yara and Lev that is the "individualist" act, leading as it does to betraying her orders to kill any Scar on sight, and causing her to become an isolated turncoat against her people
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
I dunno man this stuff seems very obvious to me but they'd probably yell at me about having a "colonized mindset" or whatever and say that white people invented xenophobia Trust me, no
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
People who put "family first" mean YOUR family, and that absolutely does mean, if necessary, fucking over other families Community first means YOUR community Country first means YOUR country This is ancient shit
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
In China they had a whole philosophical conundrum about how the worst possible thing a man could ever do was act against his own father in any way, and therefore what do you do if your father is a traitor to the Emperor The answer was turn him in and immediately kill yourself
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
If you didn't, then the state had to accept your information, arrest your father, then kill you for snitching on kin That's how this works
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
why isn't the answer to not turn him in i.e., if you choose not to snitch, why isn't the fact that you couldn't snitch because he's your father a defense that shields you from personal liability for not having turned him in, if/when he's caught?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Random832 @BootlegGirl
Because the state has an absolute right to punish treason by any means necessary It's two competing values colliding - the Confucian ideal that the parent/child relationship is fundamentally sacred and the Legalist ideal that the state must act to preserve its own authority
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
seems like the kind of thing that could get the state into a whole lot of trouble in practice what's the penalty for being late etc plus the state could, simply, not punish the son, while still punishing the father
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
No, then that could and would be a universal excuse A patriarch sets up a rebel movement within his whole family and everyone has to get aboard (which is, in fact, how the successful rebellions usually went)
-
-
But the way the "paradox" is phrased it's putting the two duties on different people It's like sorry dude, yes, as a son the right thing for you to do is to obey your father without question But as an agent of the state, that means I have to kill you
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Because the state is MY father
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like - Show replies
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.