61
WTF. BlueMAGA fashing out. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/libjerk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

Then to continue with the same logic, not all "ableism" is unethical, and the term shouldn't be used as automatically shameful.

Not all "Self Hating" is unethical, and the term shouldn't be used as automatically shameful.

Reproductive authority belongs to the individual, not the state, nor the general public. It is unethical and shameful for anyone to apply external pressure on that individual's decision, regardless of your moral opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    That or these ableist opinions and pressures are an ethical flaw we will judged for in retrospect by a more advanced society.

    Or perhaps applauded when the fascists win and all members of the ever growing categories of "useless eaters" are purged from humanity.

    And no, it is not unethical for people to point out that these decisions are based on ableist or eugenicist thought.

    What a strange leap of illogic, that it is immoral to challenge ableism and eugenics because someone's feelings might get hurt or they might doubt their own beliefs.

    If the individual is fine, on review, with basing their decisions on internalized ableism or racism or whatever that is obviously their choice, but they should be made aware that that is the choice they are making.

    A rational and ethical individual has an outright responsibility to bring it up, if only so the individuals in question can at least question the pressures leading to their decisions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    but they should be made aware that that is the choice they are making.

    Try rephrasing that in such a way as to not assume ignorance on the part of the individual making the decision.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Why shouldn't I when Lemmy, a relatively educated selection of hyper lefty nerds with various mental illnesses is shitting itself in a self-righteous fury at the idea that they might be indulging in eugenicist and ableist thought?

    Ignorance seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

    It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that everyone knows everything and it's therefore socially unacceptable to bring it up when on the topic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Seems your arguments are based predominantly on stereotype rather than any actual semblance of reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Seems like you couldn't find a real angle to attack or a means to defend your idea that "talking about uncomfortable things is a personal attack and verboten" so you opted to ignore a plainly evident reality with proof unfolded before your eyes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The plainly evident reality unfolded before my eyes is that "condescension" is the basis of your personality. You deem your opinion to be superior to those of anyone and everyone around you. You feel it is your moral obligation to broadly share your "wisdom"; that your audience betters themselves simply by having been exposed to your word.

    In your own way, you are trying to make the world a better place. Good for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •