3 ms·

Sorry; I still can't see it that way. I'm seeing the Federation adhering to their principles and being unwilling to compromise with a pirate queen because there

Sorry; I still can't see it that way. I'm seeing the Federation adhering to their principles and being unwilling to compromise with a pirate queen because there's no lasting peace to be built on that foundation. Osyraa can believe there is enough to pass the magic-lie-bot test and still just be wrong because she doesn't understand that peace through dictatorial strength will not hold. It's not about her submission; it's about justice. If she's not accountable, then why would her lieutenants be? Or their lieutenants? Or anyone, for the openly-practiced slavery and exploitation in the Chain? There's no peace without justice to be had, not really. Vance was being asked to declare "In the interest of peace, all this slavery was nobody's fault," and that's a non-starter.

pessimizer 4y ago
Gandhi reminded us that's a recipe for apocalypse. > Vance was being asked to declare "In the interest of peace, all this slavery was nobody's fault," and that's a non-starter. If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? If you choose to punish the slaver over freeing the slaves, are you putting your own ego above the suffering of people who you clearly don't particularly value? edit: did anyone at the Federation know any slaves? Did they ask them if they would rather be free than hold out as slaves for a trial in an indeterminate future? If the Federation managed to capture her and free the slaves, would the trial be nutritious for the slaves? Would it clothe or house them? Would it deter anyone else from becoming a warlord?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? False dichotomy. As an American, it sometimes rubs the wrong way when that's presented as either-or because the US chose not to punish many of the slavers and we continue to live with the consequences of that decision: they regained power and built the Jim Crow South. Justice is required for lasting peace. It perhaps need not be fatal, but it must be real.

pessimizer 4y ago

Gandhi reminded us that's a recipe for apocalypse. > Vance was being asked to declare "In the interest of peace, all this slavery was nobody's fault," and that's a non-starter. If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? If you choose to punish the slaver over freeing the slaves, are you putting your own ego above the suffering of people who you clearly don't particularly value? edit: did anyone at the Federation know any slaves? Did they ask them if they would rather be free than hold out as slaves for a trial in an indeterminate future? If the Federation managed to capture her and free the slaves, would the trial be nutritious for the slaves? Would it clothe or house them? Would it deter anyone else from becoming a warlord?

shadowgovt 4y ago
> If your choice is to free the slaves, or punish the slaver, which do you pick? False dichotomy. As an American, it sometimes rubs the wrong way when that's presented as either-or because the US chose not to punish many of the slavers and we continue to live with the consequences of that decision: they regained power and built the Jim Crow South. Justice is required for lasting peace. It perhaps need not be fatal, but it must be real.