Nonviolence is an inherently privileged position in the modern context. Besides the fact that the typical pacifist is quite clearly white and middle class, pacifism as an ideology comes from a privileged context. It ignores that violence is already here; that violence is an unavoidable, structurally integral part of the current social hierarchy; and that it is people of color who are most affected by that violence. Pacifism assumes that white people who grew up in the suburbs with all their basic needs met can counsel oppressed people, many of whom are people of color, to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence, until such time as the Great White Father is swayed by the movement’s demands or the pacifists achieve that legendary “critical mass. – How Nonviolence Serves the State
Critical support for the collection of Dims, Ghosts, and Gimmees just trying to make a better life for themselves.
Yeah. Commits going right to prod makes my skin crawl.
Took me a while to track it down, but I think this is the book to which you were referring.
https://angryflower.com/348.html
I make no cleans about the stances of this artist; I just saw this strip years ago.
Time for testing then 😊
Is there an option for being Evil Overlord List compliant?
Let’s not put Descartes before the horse.
Ohhh, that touched a deep well of hatred. My first engineering job was full stack and we had a highly modified Bootstrap front end. I’d build the thing they wanted, and the designers would get looped in for QA and insist that various pieces had to look like their little wireframe down to the pixel. I mean look, it’s easy right?
I asked why they are insisting on constantly going against the standards that had been adopted company-wide. Did it stop? Why no! Did I get a suit down with my boss? Why yes!
He is/was a cool guy and saw my perspective but also gave me precious advice on how to survive.
Also uses ableist language.
Here’s one: Trading cards are something you own. Skins are limited to a game you’re licensing.
Here’s another: trading cards are portable; they can be put in a collection for display, put in a safety deposit box, etc. When CS goes, all the skins go with it.
Another minor one: baseball cards are informational, the skins are cosmetic only.
Mind you, I think both are forms of unregulated gambling and trading cards as well as loot boxes should have better societal scrutiny, but they aren’t identical.
Edited for typo
Were we watching the same speech? The one where she condemns them, but states that she doesn’t have the freedom to kill someone that another might live (in this scenario, killing an alien for the sake of a crewman) and ultimately decides to turn them loose with a promise of reprisal if encountered again?
Janeway’s own log started that Tuvix was better than the sun of the parts; a better cook and tactical officer. The point of a team is that no one person is a point of failure. Factoring in a hypothetical future scenario is spurious.
An extrajudicial execution (to be charitable) for no crime is beyond most ethical frameworks.
And not one person has even tried to reconcile the speech to the Vidiians.
I understand but disagree with that perspective. To me they were not alive at the time. However, you still haven’t accounted for the rest. Reconcile the Majalis problem and Janeway’s own speech to the Vidiians.
If you abandon your principles when things get hard then they’re not principles; they’re hobbies.
You’d fit right in on Majalis then.
The two crew members that were lost at the same time Tuvix appeared? The dead (not alive) ones? And again, square this with the speech she gave the Vidiians.
If you’re going to refute, then address the whole thing.
This is not a trolley problem in that there is sequence involved:
1: Tuvok and Neelix alive before transport
2: Tuvok and Neelix dead and a new rational being in their place. This being had a moral blank slate and are thus blameless for the circumstances of creation.
3: Janeway decides that the speech she gave to the Vidiians was just hot air and that she will kill Tuvix to get the original two back. (Non lethal ways were explored, but quickly abandoned)
4: The blameless being makes an articulate case for their life, and even addresses the “needs of the many” argument by stating the truth: the other two are gone and the new being is there. (Raw, unalloyed utilitarianism is problematic at best, just ask the people of Omelas Majalis)
5: The doctor straight up says that the procedure is unethical and refuses to do it.
6: Janeway does it anyway.
Calling it a trolley problem is reductive and inaccurate.
(Edited for typo.)
What Clive Barker movie do you live in?