| Fuzn Member Level: 23 ![]() Posts: 97/97 EXP: 61008 For next: 6715 Since: 02-23-11 Since last post: 317 days Last activity: 317 days |
|
||
| I asked in the Discord, "is it really okay to say that one minor personal choice determines the whole of a person's character?" The answer I got was "yes, it does." "It's about what he's donating to" you might say. But that missed the point of the question. The answer hurt me, because that question was not just directed at the Scott Cawthon situation, it was largely a referendum for the discussion. The answer being "yes" means that, by the logic that was demonstrated, racism, heterophobia, levels of abuse, hate, and so many other negative qualities that this community stands against are wholly acceptable so long as they lined up with perceived ideological goals. Would this forum's moderators allow someone to pass judgments of similar caliber against them? That someone could say their support of the LGBTQ+ movement means that they must also be in support of paedophilia, zoophilia, racism, heterophobia, among other incredibly dumb claims? I would hope the answer was "no", and I expect that the answer to that is "no", but I can't accept "no". Not with the logic that was demonstrated in front of me. The answer was "yes", and it stands regardless of anything that could be presented to the contrary. It was a very Twitter-esque answer, which is shocking considering just how much this place seems to hate Twitter explicitly for those kinds of poor quality answers, yet accepts something that is just as bad if not effectively worse in Mastodon. Yet, the answer still stands. One's personal choices in one specific area, no matter the scale of their involvement, or personal responsibility, means that they must be compromised regardless of any evidence of character, context, or circumstance. No matter what. There is one moment that I can think of in history that followed that answer to a scary degree. It was a choice made by a certain fascist leader known as Adolf Hitler, and it involved the imprisonment and execution of many Jewish people. What was the reason for it? They were compromised, and there was nothing else to be said. Anybody who sympathized with the Jews was just as guilty. There's a number of counters that you, reader, can probably think of as to "BTFO" of my point. I don't expect anybody who reads this to do anything but defend their position, nor do I even expect that this post this will even last very long before it is deleted in some form. I only want to say that the answer to that question was still "yes", despite every bit of nuance I introduced into the discussion, every question I asked of others' perceptions of it as well. Me being kicked from it confirmed that as far as this community is concerned, it is okay to think that the answer to my question is and always will be "yes". It will be "yes" so long as it is considered okay to abuse others on that logic alone. |

















