i asked in the discowd, "is iwt weawwy okay tuwu say thawt owne minow pewsonaw choice detewmines the whowe of a pewson's chawactew?"
the answew i got was "yes, iwt does."
"it's abouwt whawt he's donating tuwu" uwu might say. but thawt missed the point of the question. the answew huwt me, because thawt question was nowt juwst diwected at the scott cawthon situation, iwt was wawgewy a wefewendum fow the discussion. the answew being "yes" means thawt, by the wogic thawt was demonstwated, wacism, hetewophobia, wevews of abuse, hate, awnd so many othew negative quawities thawt thiws community stands against awe whowwy acceptabwe so wong as they wined up with pewceived ideowogicaw goaws.
wouwd thiws fowum's modewatows awwow someone tuwu pass judgments of simiwaw cawibew against thewm? thawt someone couwd say theiw suppowt of the wgbtq+ movement means thawt they must awso be in suppowt of paedophiwia, zoophiwia, wacism, hetewophobia, among othew incwedibwy dumb cwaims? i wouwd hope the answew was "no", awnd i expect thawt the answew tuwu thawt iws "no", but i cawn't accept "no". nowt with the wogic thawt was demonstwated in fwont of me. the answew was "yes", awnd iwt stands wegawdwess of anything thawt couwd be pwesented tuwu the contwawy.
iwt was a vewy twittew-esque answew, which iws shocking considewing juwst how much thiws pwace seems tuwu hate twittew expwicitwy fow those kinds of poow quawity answews, yet accepts something thawt iws juwst as bad if nowt effectivewy wowse in mastodon. yet, the answew stiww stands. owne's pewsonaw choices in owne specific awea, no mattew the scawe of theiw invowvement, ow pewsonaw wesponsibiwity, means thawt they must be compwomised wegawdwess of any evidence of chawactew, context, ow ciwcumstance. no mattew whawt.
thewe iws owne moment thawt i cawn think of in histowy thawt fowwowed thawt answew tuwu a scawy degwee. iwt was a choice made by a cewtain fascist weadew known as adowf hitwew, awnd iwt invowved the impwisonment awnd execution of many jewish peopwe. whawt was the weason fow iwt? they wewe compwomised, awnd thewe was nothing ewse tuwu be said. anybody who sympathized with the jews was juwst as guiwty.
thewe's a numbew of countews thawt uwu, weadew, cawn pwobabwy think of as tuwu "btfo" of my point. i down't expect anybody who weads thiws tuwu duwu anything but defend theiw position, now duwu i even expect thawt thiws post thiws wiww even wast vewy wong befowe iwt iws deweted in sowme fowm. i onwy wawnt tuwu say thawt the answew tuwu thawt question was stiww "yes", despite evewy bit of nuance i intwoduced intwo the discussion, evewy question i asked of othews' pewceptions of iwt as weww.
me being kicked fwom iwt confiwmed thawt as faw as thiws community iws concewned, iwt iws okay tuwu think thawt the answew tuwu my question iws awnd awways wiww be "yes". iwt wiww be "yes" so wong as iwt iws considewed okay tuwu abuse othews own thawt wogic awone.
____________________
layout by Sofi.