3 ms·
I feel the same argument could have been made for someone thrown out of a tribunal for constantly swearing at the defendant. Sure there’s an emotional side of
by hrktb 8y ago
I feel the same argument could have been made for someone thrown out of a tribunal for constantly swearing at the defendant.
Sure there’s an emotional side of it, but following a set of rules doesn’t prevent from expressing one’s opinion to a satisfactory point.
- kevingadd 8y agoI think the argument being made by TFA is that rules and structures can, if constructed incorrectly, privilege 'civil' advocacy for abhorrent behavior over discourse that accurately characterizes it for what it is. Hyperbolically decrying minor things as atrocities has led to rules of decorum that assume no atrocities actually occur, and any heated argument is automatically bad.
- hrktb 8y agoThe TFA isn’t about accurately describing behavior, it’s about voicing disgust in feel-good words for the author. > But the hyperbolic and comic hope that a just god might smite the slanderer or brutalizer with a deadly skin disorder is somehow beyond the pale. Words are plenty, there would be no shortage of them to express the author’s point within relying on deadly skin disorders. Nobody [edit: here at least] is denying atrocities, the point is to adjust communication to the medium used.