Also, back us on @Drip at the $10 level or higher and get access to all of our bonus segments, including this week's very special segment! http://d.rip/femfreq https://twitter.com/DavidCivera/status/953657632308584448 …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I really agree with you re: the lack of fishman perspective. It was a very Stockholm syndrome-ish dynamic.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You hit it on the head
@ebonyaster when you talked about the annoying whimsy of Amelie. THATs the thing that was bugging me with all Del Toro’s stuff. Makes me want to look back at Pans Labyrinth too. Such a strange thing to detect but very accurateThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As a student of the Law, I feel like you miss the point when people talk about stuff like
#MeToo
and harassment in that context. There's a difference between "legal" and "lawful." Legal refers to the letter of the law, arbitrary whims of the legislature, which can be racist ... -
Lawful refers to the spirit of the law and morality. The whole of "the Law" can be surmised in three words: do no harm. So when
@anitasarkeesian says something can be lawful but still harmful, that is objectively false within the realm of philosophy ... -
Again, specific statutes can be racist / sexist, but the concept of due process itself is not and cannot by definition. If you're being harassed, whether online or wherever, you have the right to seek redress because harassment is a moral crime ...
-
What constitutes harassment is a question of FACT, not law (and not feelz), and whether you choose to resort to the State or the site admin or some other relevant authority is a matter of discretion, but in each case there are good / bad consequences for that decision ...
-
So while
@carolynmichelle is correct in stating we want healthier relations, having the discussion is important to ensure it stays healthy and doesn't get inverted, which was Atwood's point. Purging the toxin means little if you kill the patient in the process ... -
It's like how we discuss robot ethics so we never have to find out what would happen if we just let things take their course without considering the consequences. That we took precautions to consider the extreme is WHY it will never happen. Without that, though? Who knows?
-
And because I know someone's gonna misinterpret that ... no, I'm not comparing women to robots. Just stating that it's prudent to think past the immediate. Yes, by all mean, purge the toxic men from the ranks, please and thank you, but be wary of unintended side effects.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Since Ebony brought up the nuances of MLK ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgqz3CaAWC0 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@ebonyaster Don't like Amelie?????? WTF???

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.
