Read on Twitter
For the handful of you who don't think the language of wokeness can be bent towards reactionary ends, this tweet. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1306310214090547205
You want context? Here it is. https://twitter.com/artemis_nieves/status/1306289891223973888
Isn't it fascinating how that sentence could have been used to support e.g., restorative justice?
Specifics matter! https://twitter.com/Pullingaclaudia/status/1306313464567169024?s=20
Specifics matter! https://twitter.com/Pullingaclaudia/status/1306313464567169024?s=20
There are steps between pacifism and "Public shaming, retaliatory violence, etc"
It's the etc that really makes it. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1306323875555205120?s=20
It's the etc that really makes it. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1306323875555205120?s=20
Y'know. Hurting them, however!
Unless said Klansman is in fact presenting an imminent danger it's still murder to kill him. If its because the killer has appointed themselves as the distributor of justice in lieu of society it's vigilantism. Lynching requires a group, however. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1306322160948895745?s=20
But yes, I am in fact against lynching, vigilantism AND murder, even of terrible people!
Hey folks, quick lesson on rhetoric here. This argument is designed to put me on the wrong side of it by framing in terms of privilege and claims to be about morality. But it's actually about something else. Look at the work "have to"
is doing. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1306685180195663873?s=20
is doing. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1306685180195663873?s=20
The actual issue we were discussion is when violence is justified. If you "have to" do something it's definitionally justified. The argument is actually over when you have to do something - either due to coercion or moral or ethical obligation.
I'm not sure this fits the most formal definition of "begging the question" but it's the same mechanism in assuming the truth as proof of your conclusion.
Sung to the tune of "Imagine" and also gunfire. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1307040830402822146?s=20
Do we have to have a lesson on the deceptive use of "many", or has Trump finally taught us all how that trick works? https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1307043672177999872?s=20
Oh wow, "falling guillotines" would have been much better there, this is what happens when you don't let the joke bake until done. https://twitter.com/tznkai/status/1307043461779030017?s=20
More rhetoric lessons:
Asking for definitions isn't dodging the question, refusing to define things is!
Sometimes this is tactical. Often it's just a sign that your interlocutor has problems regulating their emotions when they argue. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1307062428690190336?s=20
Asking for definitions isn't dodging the question, refusing to define things is!
Sometimes this is tactical. Often it's just a sign that your interlocutor has problems regulating their emotions when they argue. https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1307062428690190336?s=20
But what if we only murder the bad people?
Every variation of this argument goes down a handful of paths:
1. How imminent does the threat have to be?
2. is murder always murder?
3. How can you be sure they are bad people?
4. who gets to make the call? https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1307074744353579008?s=20
Every variation of this argument goes down a handful of paths:
1. How imminent does the threat have to be?
2. is murder always murder?
3. How can you be sure they are bad people?
4. who gets to make the call? https://twitter.com/Annabrenna685/status/1307074744353579008?s=20
Even with a good faith interlocutor most of these discussions are pointless. Spend the time you need to make the best case you have of whatever is important to you and then move on.
