4 ms·
Is that really the case though or are the people "resisting the status quo" actually feigning offense over "discrimination" because they resent the fact that th
by youdontknowtho 8y ago
Is that really the case though or are the people "resisting the status quo" actually feigning offense over "discrimination" because they resent the fact that their position is widely accepted as immoral? (Racism or sexism.) They refuse to argue their actual point... minorities should not receive benefits because they do not deserve benefits for one reason or another...because those reasons are also considered unnacceptable to express by most people.
- naasking 8y agoWell if you're free to ignore the principle of charity, then you can ascribe any sort of unethical motives to your opponents. I could just as easily argue that such anti-discrimination efforts are really driven by white-people hate, and accuse them of refusing to address this point. And how you feel right now at that over the top statement is exactly how your opponents feel when you make the contrary claim. Absent some expressed inconsistency, you take people at their word. As I've explained elsewhere in this thread, there's nothing inconsistent with what the LLVM dev has said, and it's fully justifiable from ethical principles. Maybe he is being disingenuous, but that doesn't make the argument itself wrong.