"I'm sorry, ma'am, what compass are we using here to determine moral correctness?"
"What? No, you dunder-head, I meant the political Right, not what's morally correct. God, where we do get you people? We agreed on this. We're looking for a way to pull this off that circumvents the rule of law and justice for our own personal interests."
"Oh. And this is what his victims want? To see him disgraced and set up to look as if he committed suicide?"
"Who cares what they want? This is about not having any of his toxic backwash get on the rest of us. If we publicly expose him, people might realize we empowered him and replace us, TOO."
Yeah, I'm not buying this whole premise. While I'm sure SOME of the victims might desire this outcome, there are plenty that don't equate murdering the perpetrator as fixing their emotional issues (and deprives them of any way to get closure at some later date). The woman here presents death as the ONLY solution, the RIGHT solution and her main reasoning is 'he'd get off with just being in a 'NICE' prison and be 'embarrassed'.
I like the IDEA of saying 'look, let's workshop this assassination', but the premise of 'well, we're circumventing the law to do what's 'right', also we no longer consider him politically useful' isn't really as compelling an idea as they think.
Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.
Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-12 10:26 pm (UTC)Because otherwise this is 100% edgelord political bullshit.
(Apologies for the more dense than usual profanity)
no subject
Date: 2018-07-13 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-12 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-13 12:16 am (UTC)Also, it's Chris Burnham, so an ugly book looks about ten times uglier than it already is.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-13 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-13 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-13 02:57 am (UTC)I'm not interested. :)
no subject
Date: 2018-07-13 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-13 01:36 pm (UTC)"I'm sorry, ma'am, what compass are we using here to determine moral correctness?"
"What? No, you dunder-head, I meant the political Right, not what's morally correct. God, where we do get you people? We agreed on this. We're looking for a way to pull this off that circumvents the rule of law and justice for our own personal interests."
"Oh. And this is what his victims want? To see him disgraced and set up to look as if he committed suicide?"
"Who cares what they want? This is about not having any of his toxic backwash get on the rest of us. If we publicly expose him, people might realize we empowered him and replace us, TOO."
Yeah, I'm not buying this whole premise. While I'm sure SOME of the victims might desire this outcome, there are plenty that don't equate murdering the perpetrator as fixing their emotional issues (and deprives them of any way to get closure at some later date). The woman here presents death as the ONLY solution, the RIGHT solution and her main reasoning is 'he'd get off with just being in a 'NICE' prison and be 'embarrassed'.
I like the IDEA of saying 'look, let's workshop this assassination', but the premise of 'well, we're circumventing the law to do what's 'right', also we no longer consider him politically useful' isn't really as compelling an idea as they think.