IMHO the point of staying friends with people who have harmful object-level beliefs is the hope that you can argue them out of it via spirited but nonpersonal discussion. Sadly some people take 'hey have you considered this might harm real people if enacted' as a personal attack.
-
-
being able to get along with people who you disagree with is way more beneficial and mitigates far more harm than trying to shun the wrongthinkers no matter how bad they are
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
being able to get along with people you disagree with is a good skill, but that doesn't mean doing it just for its own sake is a good use of one's time
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I feel like 'supporting measures that would strip away the bodily autonomy of others' is something I'm ok with being a red line. This isn't something I impose universally, but we're talking about acquaintances here, not family members or lifelong friends.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @hikikomorphism @kushnerbomb and
Also I did have to think about this for a minute because that is a pretty good meta level point/default heuristic, just not something I consider to be a universalizable axiom
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I've never read kant (or most philosophers tbh), should I?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
specifically Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest
-
-
Thanks. 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.