- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Lemmy in a nutshell
Everyone deserves to be treated exactly the way they treat others.
So be racist to racists. Throw homophobes on the street. Exploit the rich. And kill all Nazis.
And if they can’t handle that, then that is on them. It is the most neutral view you can have of the world.
Tolerance paradox in action!
I remember being told it makes more sense when you realize it’s a part of the social contract. Breaching it prevents you from taking part in it.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
A system of fair rules does not always lead to fair outcomes, if the rules don’t accommodate the asymmetry in capacity, motivation, resources, etc.
Blatant flaw in this: I don’t want to murder anyone. I don’t want to rape anyone. I don’t want to be racist to anyone (though I acknowledge I am). And the moment I would do something like that to anyone, I would be a murderer or a rapist, and that’s a shitty thing to be. So no thanks.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Exactly not. An eye for an eye ended the custom of escalating feuds. If only one eye can be taken in revenge, then all other eyes stay healthy.
It only continues if a taken eye is seen as unjust which leads to a chain of mutually unjustly taken eyes. But that’s a slow process so the elders may figure something out while it happens.
I understand what that is supposed to mean, but it makes no sense. I have never taken anybody’s eyeball so if that was the law of the land, I would feel pretty safe. Eventually, everyone going around taking eyeballs would have no eyes and they would be much less likely to be able to take more, at least without some assistance I imagine.
Plenty of places have a “death for a death” law where if you kill someone you can be put to death. I’m against the death penalty personally, but that has never really been of personal concern to me since I don’t go around murdering.
If you take something from someone, should they not be able to take it back from you? If you steal $1000, do I just have to sit there? I should be entitled to take $1000 back. If anything, I should also potentially be entitled to more.
While for an eye is not my preference, it was used to make people as whole as possible and was considered an improvement at the time.
Yeah, also, I’d like my moral reasoning to have evolved past Hammurabi.
It’s just an endless line of good intentioned rapists.
Been a while since I watched Death Note, but did Light brutally murder people? I thought it was mostly heart attacks, which was the default way for someone to die unless otherwise specified.
He killed innocents to avoid prosecution.
That I do remember. I just assumed that was also via heart attacks. Either way, still an evil act.
Even if he hadn’t caused a variety of deaths in a variety of ways, I think causing a variety of heart attacks still counts as brutally murdering people
I’ve never had a heart attack so idk how to gauge if it’s a brutal way to die or not. I’ll assume it’s not the best way to go lol
The elaborate bus jacking was pretty violent. I think he also had some prisoners do things like write messages in their own blood when he was testing the notebook out.
I feel this way about cops, land lords and billionaires. Tbf tho if those didn’t exist the world would be a much better place.
I’ll allow you to call me bad if I’m also allowed to drop billionaires, the trillionaire, selected world leaders, and most of the Epstein class in to a woodchipper. It only seems fair.
What is more important: considering yourself a good person, or materially benefiting the world?
I’ll take option 2, thanks. Woodchippers! GET YOUR WOODCHIPPERS HERE!!
Fuck this noise. Kill Nazis and fascists.
Try them in court, convict, and then line them up with their families watching and shoot them in the face and make it required viewing for every kid on the planet.
Hey now! Just look at history and you’ll see how often non-violence works! Like for instance checks notes …uh oh frantically flipping through notes guys, oh no!
So much for the tolerant left…
Motherfuckers, you labeled me as tolerant because I don’t hate people for immutable characteristics they were born with. That doesn’t mean I’m tolerant of nazis maga traitors.
Tolerance paradox is the only way forward. They deserve no quarter.
A trial with due process is key. But, they’d need to be kicked out of power, first. Somehow. Because Nazis won’t convict Nazis, obviously.
I’m not looking forward to what happens if they steal the mid-terms.
Nah, they should be treated the way they treat others.
Nazis are the only group that deserve to be gassed.
“So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt!!”
Pictured: Antifa social group, North Africa club, 1943, being as tolerant as they can
Those Nazis really get my goat!
And if they don’t like this, there’s always the super easily, highly convenient solution of NOT BEING A NAZI.
But that’s not fair my skin is white and that means I’m important because insert fascist leader said so.
But we must always focus on our goal of minimizing suffering. The path to evil comes when we focus more on us vs them and hurting the enemy than we are on building a better world. Fetishization of violence is a dangerous path.
I lament that I believe that violence and public executions are necessary, but I do. But I also don’t believe it’s sufficient. We must also build a better world.
Hooray
Let’s all have barbecue afterwards because these fucks don’t get to put a stain on our day
Barbeque the Naizis ALIIIVE!
I for one can’t wait to see who the modern John C Woods will be
Reign of Terror ass motherfucker
#2 electric boogaloo
Light Yagami would say that
Quite a severe lack of intellectual rigour is going on there. If nothing happens to bad people then they’ll keep being bad people. The difference between the bad people and the good people is that the bad people do bad things because they like it. Good people do bad things to stop bad people from being bad people doing bad things.
If you let the bad people do bad things because you’re a good person and as a good person you don’t do bad things then the bad things may as well be done by the good people. It’s all the same.
Light went after people in the prison system or suspected of being criminals, without ever doubting the justness of the system in any way. He is useful idiot, delusional agent of the system or megalomaniacal bootlicker. Choose your pick.
I mean, wasnt he being led by a literal trickster demon…?
Ryuk was pretty hands off throughout the whole thing. He kind of just sat there and basked in the spectacle. Hell, there were points where he was shocked a human was even capable of going as far as Light did.
The “trickster demon” who in episode 1 hears Light’s plan and responds, “If you do that, you’ll be the only bad guy left?”
Ryuk didn’t make him do shit, he was just in it for the apples.
Maybe I missed that (I watched it twice), but to me it appeared very much so that he had (except after the intricate swaps, which erased his memory) full agency, and was the one pushing the limits/boundaries of the mechanic.
Of course one can make the point that power corrupts etc., and the Shinigamis are attached to that power. In a way, they embody power and could be seen as the corrupting force, but that is as far as I would take that. At least Riuk was emotionally detached/had no real stake in it. I don’t recall him ever endorsing or driving him to persue his mission. Maybe his subdued admiration of Lights “shenanigans” can be seen as adding fuel to the his (ego) fire, but that also is a defect Light has had before, not instilled by Riuk.
I just always took his “admiration” as a subtle nod to the darker forces at play. Like he isnt directly telling him to do it but he is definitely feeding off of it in a sense and lightly encourages it. Its not blatant. I always took the apples to be that kind of metaphor
Ok, but you do realize you can punish someone without killing, right? It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Bad people can be prevented from doing more bad things without any blood being shed.
You can try but look what happened when we didn’t finish off the slavers and the Nazis. They linger on until an orange shitstain comes along and empowers them.
The problem with most things that use good and bad as a foundation is that they never account for perspective.
Good and bad are made up and subjective.
If you don’t account for that in your positions then you’re setting yourself up for fundamentalism.
Absolutely I am merely responding with the same level of intellectualism as the original comment.
If we can’t even get as far as sometimes violence is necessary and absolutism is a useless philosophy, then there’s no point getting into nuance.
I don’t think good and bad are that subjective. You can get into the weeds but it can be pretty well boiled down to “treat others the way you want them to treat you” is good and “treat others in a way you wouldn’t want them to treat you” is bad. We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
“One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” is a concise way that the goodness or badness of an actions or outcomes is filtered through the subjective lens of the whoever happens to be considering the topic.
On an individual level, “don’t be a dick” is a pretty useful guideline , but even that is subject to what each person thinks constitutes dickish behaviour.
We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
Even that is subjective, think about what is socially acceptable in Finland?, how about Russia?, Morocco? France?
Do they all have the same idea of socially acceptable behaviours?
How about now vs 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years in the future?.
Sure, there are some that are fairly common, but i wouldn’t consider those to be of a sufficient percentage of the whole that i could disregard behvaioural subjectivity, but that’s just my opinion.
That’s why America has so many “good guys with guns”.
That whole idea is poorly thought out. In the split second of danger presented in the situation where a good guy with a gun could stop something, no one has any idea what is happening or why or to who and the decision must be made in seconds. No wonder good guy with gun doesn’t just start blasting. If their goal is to not hurt good people, blasting away is a good way to hurt Innocents.
Not to mention, people don’t like getting shot themselves.
What is good or bad? Whats bad on one side is good on the other. Both sides are good with the other side bad, from their point of view. With no objective good or bad, neither is, and morality means nothing so you can do anything with a clear conscience.
With no objective good or bad
Where do pedophilia and rape fall in your intellectually lazy, moral relativism argument? What about freeing enslaved people?
Saying there is no objective good or bad only shows your lack of moral convictions.
Are you going to apply this logic to the activities which took place on Epstein Island?
Sorry but that’s irrelevant. Who personally views themselves as good and bad isn’t relevant to how I apply your logic from my perspective.
The danger comes in thinking that everything you do is good simply because you do it.
You shouldn’t hurt people if you don’t have to but that’s not the same as saying that violence should be avoided at all costs and that it’s never useful, or even ultimately the lesser evil.
I have a problem with these absolutists the tried to suggest that the situation should never be taken into account and that violence is always bad. It’s intellectually dishonest and it’s naive.
deleted by creator
.ml in a nutshell.
Yarrr, it be a good shitpost. Stupid, provocative …
I mean, I know we should not generalize, but the Epstein class are bad people who deserve to be murdered in awful suffering.
It’s rare to see someone wno is evil without a doubt, but anyone from the Epstein class is one.
Who are “the Epstein class”? Just Epstein and Ghislaine? Just the rapists? Everyone in the files?
Seems like, whatever the punishment, you still need a process to determine guilt according to the evidence, rather than trial by public opinion.
I’ll settle for “anyone accused of any wrongdoing in the Epstein files in any manner.”
We can sort through the gritty details afterwards and apologize to the single person that was wrongly accused.
Can’t apologize to someone you murdered (their words).
Call me crazy, but I don’t think being accused of a crime should be enough for a death sentence.
In any other circumstance I would agree with you. This about the survival of the species. This isn’t a normal bad government structure that needs to be rooted out. This isn’t the same oppression that we’ve been dealing with for thousands of years. The people in that list are specifically the most powerful and untouchable people that have ever lived and they are ACTIVELY MURDERING THE PLANET FOR THEIR OWN PLEASURE. This isn’t something that can wait for the normal process to take it’s time. If we don’t act this minute, we will be too late. It’s quite likely that we are already too late.
I’m sure that apology will do a lot of good to them after they’re dead.
Me, I’ll be over here standing up for the rule of law instead of “just kill whoever is accused in a particular set of documents”.
In a normal situation, I would agree with you that we should follow the rule of law. But there is simply no time to beat around the bush for a few decades sorting through all the docs and having trials for everyone involved when everyone involved OWNS THE JUDGES. the system must change before we can achieve justice, and there is no way to change that system through the legal system.
I dunno just making a list for people that are apologetic about it, positive towards it, partial to the acts or on the receiving end of a cashflow would be just insta killable if I was suddenly dictator of the world
People that treat people as things deserve the same courtesy.
Guilt tripping is a tactic often used by the abuser to control the abused.
I mean, what if the Bad People are Nazis
Unpopular opinion:
Universal human rights apply to all humans, including Nazis.
Dehumanizing people and denying them their human rights is what Nazis do.“Universal” human rights can be forfeited by the individual by attempting to restrict another’s rights.
Done and done.
Nazis do have human rights. Including the right to be punished for their actions. Just like everyone else.
But if the governments don’t punish them for their actions then don’t be surprised if people take matters into their own hands. Which again, would happened to any group of people that were perceived as having too much power and being given too much leeway by the government, regardless of political beliefs.
A right is something you can claim for yourself. “Being punished for your actions” is not a right. I’d even argue that, from a political/social standpoint, punishment shouldn’t be the goal: at a minimum, we should seek to reeducate, and if that fails, isolation is the way to go.
That being said, at the individual level, I wholeheartedly condone the punching of nazis.
I find it amazing that you’re seriously advising people to fight the foot soldiers to no end instead of, you know, the handful of people in that “government” who are responsible for enabling them. The people with the wealth, influence, and technology to rig elections, make enemies and evidence disappear, controvert the law with impunity, and psychologically manipulate the masses.
But yeah fuck it, let’s just stay mad at Bubba on Facebook with a room temp IQ. I’m sure Sun Tzu would be proud.
You see the problem here is you’ve decided what I’m arguing and suggesting people do, rather than actually reading my comment. I don’t think I’ve ever stated anywhere that you can’t apply any of what I’ve said to politicians rich CEOs and anybody else who’s at it.
But there is a very important distinction to be made between the people who are actually hurting people and the people who are using them, because the people who are using them won’t do anything on their own, they need their foot soldiers as you call them. Diminish their foot soldiers and you diminish their power too, it’s all one thing. I’m pretty sure Sun Tzu probably has something to say about actually killing your enemies soldiers being worthwhile objective.
But there is a very important distinction to be made between the people who are actually hurting people and the people who are using them, because the people who are using them won’t do anything on their own, they need their foot soldiers as you call them. Diminish their foot soldiers and you diminish their power too, it’s all one thing.
Again, hilarious. You’ve talked yourself out of correctness and into victim blaming. Congratulations, you’re no better than them for the good of all mankind. Toodles.
I’m confused as to what your suggestion is. Do you think people who are “just followingorders” should not be held accountable for their actions because they were not the ones issuing the orders?
Read some of the other comments here, happily wanting to take nazis human rights
By virtue of being nazis they have forfeited the protections of the social contract. I don’t give a fuck about the dehumanization or human rights angle, when a thing exists for the sole purpose of destroying society (like nazism and any supremacism) you remove it by any means necessary from society. You do not allow it to continue because if you do, it will destroy you. Fascism is an existential threat and killing fascists is always self defense.
They gave those up within their ideology
I’ll kill a charging polar bear too even though I love animals
I’m not surprised. But I don’t condone or celebrate it either.
The death of a Nazi is always a cause for celebration
A Nazi may “die” through ceasing to hold to Nazi ideals, and striving to better themselves. Many strong fighters for good causes began their fight on the wrong side. I can’t imagine how much worse the world would be if, historically, such people had been killed out of hand as you suggest would be right.
You do get no ones actually killing them.
We’re giving them a good kicking but they walk away with no broken bones, no concussion, and certainly with all their organs still functioning. For the most part these guys are cowards, you don’t need to kill them to stop them, you just need to make them experience mild discomfort.
It’s the right that love to kill each other.
Although I have to ask, do you seriously think that these people have anything to contribute to society. For the most part they think the way they do because they are ill-educated woth the world horizon been about 50 miles away from their own house. They’ve never met the people they hate, they’ve never been to their country, these people have never experienced the suffering of war or famine, and because of that they can’t imagine it. I don’t think society is being denied the next Nobel laureate just because it is intolerant of racists.
The right have it so easy. They are all united together as one group of racist assholes.
The left after deal with a bunch of fence sitters that never want to do anything, who generally just hope that the situation magically resolves itself on its own. Any suggestion by anyone that maybe it would be a good idea to perhaps do something, is always meant with pushback.
I’ll agree this should be an unpopular opinion. When they deny the rights of others, they forfeit their own.
Society is generally based on social contracts regarding human decency, respect and what apparently are more extreme ideas like compassion and empathy. It’s an agreement to be a part of a community, not to exploit it for selfish gain. If they want to do that, at the very least they should be exiled and allowed only care about themselves by themselves.
We need to stop tolerating intolerance. If you’re harmful to our species letalone our planet that we share with so many others, part present and future, ostracize or eradicate. This high road shit has gotten use nowhere in the entirety of our planets history but right here where monsters are allowed and encouraged to reign.
I’ll also agree to step up to the chopping block if it means I take some of these assholes to hell hand in hand with me.
Granting someone human rights IS NOT tolerance.
And it’s not high road shit.When Nazis attack your state with an army, shoot them in defense.
When they attack your society, arrest them, give them a trial, lock them up and seize all assets they used.
Inestigate their support network and shut that down. Ban Nazi parties, clubs and groups.
Also, fund organisations that help people trying to get out of the Nazi community.The problem we have isn’t that those measures aren’t enough.
It’s that we don’t even do those things, because our politicians are actually in league with them or afraid of them.When they attack your society, arrest them, give them a trial, lock them up and seize all assets they used.
Inestigate their support network and shut that down. Ban Nazi parties, clubs and groups.This. Does. Not. Work.
Does that mean that from your perspective, the US shouldn’t have attacked and defeated the Nazis in WW2 and should have allowed them to stay in power and do their thing instead?
This kinda seems like preferring to sacrifice the human rights of the innocent, to protect the human rights of their murderers.
Welcome to the uncomfortable morality of international relations, where you may be able to stop some evil people, but the costs may involve extreme human suffering and you may not be able to stop them.
Attacking nazi Germany is one end of the spectrum, in retrospect it was an easy choice. The Iraq war is on the other end, it went quite poorly and the internal motivations were tainted. The US war in Afghanistan is up there with it. And there’s a lot of gray areas, like theoretically attacking Myanmar today or the bombing campaign that contributed to the fall of Ghaddafi.
I don’t think anybody is actually suggesting that the Iraq war for example was moral so I’m not quite sure what your point is.
At the time people were absolutely trying to frame it partially in moral terms. It’s the other end of the spectrum, an intervention with some intended moral aim (to stop the attacks on the Iraqi Kurds) that’s now nearly universally understood to not have been moral.
Granting someone human rights IS NOT tolerance
It IS bullshit. No one ever is born with the notion of human rights and all the crap, but some creatures are born human nonetheless. Which is why
And it’s not high road shit
It actually is. I can agree not to kill someone unless they have killed or caused comparable harm, but not after. Once someone has breached social contract of decent treatment of others - they are not protected by it in my eyes anymore. Yes, it makes me capable of terrible things. No, I am not giving up that capability just for an idea that “I am good and civilized, unlike others”
No one ever is born with the notion of human rights and all the crap, but some creatures are born human nonetheless.
Nobody is born racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and fascist either.
Yes, and?
No one ever is born with the notion of human rights and all the crap
Maybe not in your country, but here in Germany people are in fact born with human rights, including notably the right to live.
Which, funnily, both the human rights declaration and the German constitution where written right after the nazi reign, by people who knew better than you and me what fashism can do.
“Not men, fascists.”
You did not get what I said, but I am willing to help you this time:
know of people who happen to be raised outside of society, e.g. in jungles? Can’t talk to them about rights and stuff, but human they are. Also, you and me on our day 1 on this planet: did any of us open our eyes and think “hey, I have rights” ?
It also makes you susceptible to do inhumane things to people based on false information.
Are you seriously suggesting that merely pointing to someone and going this guy’s a Nazi would immediately result in a beating? Come on that’s an intellectually dishonest arguement and you know it, that is absolutely not happening no one is doing that.
What’s happening is the Nazis are ousting themselves. They provide their own evidence. They film themselves doing this stuff, rioting, setting fire to buildings, weaving misspelt banners around. They are pointing the finger at themselves.
No one attacks people without evidence. Look at Trump, every time Mr tiny hands doesn’t like somebody he accuses them of being a fascist, without knowing what the word means. But it’s utterly irrelevant because no one believes him.
How so? It’s not like we’re being manipulated into thinking people that aren’t nazis are. We’re watching them openly do nazi shit, we’re watching seig heils at the inauguration, we’re seeing literally nazi playbook shit, again all out in the open. Nobody is telling us this is nazi shit, we’re just seeing it for what it is. How can that be used nefariously? There’s no fox news equivalent manipulating the masses of the left, we’re just informed enough to see a spade for a fuckin spade. So tell me exactly how that can make me susceptible to do inhumane things based on false information. Be specific.
This argument just destroyed all of the plans of civilized man. WE ARE RUINED! at any moment we could be deceived! Let’s all lie down in the dirt and cry until we die.
Yes, and unless I am inhumane myself that will go on to
hunthaunt me long after the fact. This knife cuts both ways
You talked us into enough shit.
Silence.
Username checks out.
Granted your wish and silenced you.
It is sad for us to have to go through such trauma but violently murdering fascists is not dehumanizing. We are honouring them by believing the true extent of their evil, respecting their decision by reacting truthful to reality. It’s inhumane to let such sick individuals believe they might be right, when they believe in power being absolute. Natural order is what they want, why deny them?
Lets debate the SS in the marketplace of ideas…
Trolley problem — save the human rights of billions by sacrificing the human rights of the few who want to tie all of these people to the trolley tracks
Except it’s not because killing them isn’t the only option
Listen, you don’t convert a nazi. Some can come out of it on their own when the right support is present, but here’s the thing: I’m not obligated to help someone who’s ideology expressly wishes for my death. Until they’re not a nazi by both their own and others metrics they’re an existential threat that should be eliminated with extreme prejudice by any means possible. If that’s reeducation, fine, but that largely doesn’t work. When something is actively trying to kill you right now, today, then you fucking kill it back. Especially when it’s trying to kill you because your skin is darker or you’re queer or your junk doesn’t match your gender. I’ll stop wanting them dead when they stop wanting me dead.
It is tho
What is your method to eliminating the active concentration camps posthaste?
Doesn’t seem like a very unpopular opinion tbh
If you push back on “punch a nazi” you’ll find how unpopular it is quite quickly
We are pushing back on “kill everyone accused of being a nazi”.
And in doing so, I have been accused of being a nazi in this thread, ergo I should apparently be shot and killed. I came here to escape reddit but I think I made a mistake.
So you see how the OP’s caption didn’t mention anything about mere accusations, and implicitly assumed that the speaker could discern good from evil? And we then had to point out that in practice it’s accusations, not objective fact?
And do you see how the person at the top of this comment chain started at the basis of fundamental human rights, which not include the right to life, but also the right not to be assaulted?
So, the difference you are seeing is not a meaningful one.
Without context, it isn’t.
As soon as I post it in a thread about Nazis doing Nazi shit, I get downvoted to hell.
Same with my anti-war stance.As soon as I post it in a thread about Nazis doing Nazi shit, I get downvoted to hell.
Gee, I wonder why
Context is critical though. Often times I see people say things like “we shouldn’t stoop to their levels” which, like yeah, we shouldn’t have to.
The moral high road is filled with corpses.
It doesn’t have to, but things have been allowed to get too far out of control, the political left have not pushed back enough and now we’ve got people doing nazi salutes out in the open. We are past the point of being able to deal with this to the legal system because the legal system has been co-opted.
I don’t know what people like you want. How do you want this situation resolving because all you ever say is what you don’t want, you don’t want violence, okay fine so how do you want to proceed?
Lmao why do you think there are corpses filling it?
they’re too busy playing by the rules and getting killed with nobody caring, because “we’re better than all that” is a dumb notion that ultimately makes you a pushover that wouldn’t pull the trigger to save 1000 people.
Not that I don’t agree but if I was a nazi i would prefer to die anyways. Even if I didn’t get killed my cellmates would probs kill me unless im isolated which is… even worse. Besides if I ever realized how messed up that was i would probs kill myself but idk how likely that is.
“Everyone I don’t agree with is a nazi therefore I am justified”
That’s the flipside, but also, some people are Nazis
A fucking lot of them these days.
Yeah, Musk and Thiel both went to Nazi grooming schools In Apartheid South Africa.
And should be on the receiving end.
But I’ve seen people called nazis for extremely trivial things too, and that is the concern there. Punch people because they are nazis. Do not call people nazis so that you can punch them.No you haven’t. That’s just slippery slope bullshit.
Took me two seconds to bring up an article on a man with allopecia being accused of being a far-right skinhead. Took me two more seconds to find an article where a man with Asperger’s recieved a torrent of false nazi accusations.
When someone is openly saying ‘punch actual nazis’ try not being disingenuous with them mate, its fucking clown behaviour.Preaching tolerance towards nazis is the only fucking clown behavior here.
And yet you posted neither, probably because you’re full of shit
Found one
Card carrying anarchist, so fuck off you pathetic cunt.
And who issued that card, some sort of authorizing individual or regulatory organization? Sounds suspiciously heirarchal lol
Oh, so you are just a wanker. No worries, enjoy sending the replies I won’t read.
this is a poorly cropped repost from tumblr, there is no critical thinking here.
Which is funny because if people listened to what you said and followed your instructions, then there literally would be no critical thinking here. Whereas if you choose to utilize critical thinking, you would not actually dismiss this thing entirely simply because it came from Tumblr because that is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.
And if all it took to stop critical thinking for anybody was just saying, oh it comes from a bad place, then nobody would ever really do any critical thinking, right?
So let’s ignore where it comes from and talk about the topic that’s actually being presented, ok?
I think we should defend ourselves against the bourgeouise 🙋
There is no war but class war.
