• TranscendentalEmpire
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    There’s a difference in victim blaming via " what was she wearing" and someone knowingly walking into a lions den while wearing a meat dress like Lady Gag.

    It would be a little different if she didn’t actively work to empower a person whose platform revolves around harassing and silencing women who have been sexually assaulted.

    Being a bad person does not mean you give up any assumption of basic human dignity.

    People who take people’s dignity in an inhumane manor do not themselves deserve to be treated with basic dignity. That’s just inviting a paradox of abuse.

      • TranscendentalEmpire
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s okay, people are allowed to have differing opinions. I was just curious about the extent of your world view. It seems to invite internal contradictions, or at least rely on a hefty amount of cognitive dissidence.

        For example, if no one deserves that type of treatment, what does the person committing or enabling those acts deserve?

        If they deserve a punishment, why not the one they laid upon others? Is it because of the nature of the treatment is somehow worse than other punishments? If it is worse for some reason, why do they deserve better treatment than what they serve to others?

        • Todd Bonzalez
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Absolutely losing it over “cognitive dissidence”. I know you meant “dissonance”, but the way you spelled it is probably more accurate.

          “Cognitive dissonance” is when a person’s behaviors don’t match their stated values or beliefs. It’s basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate. I’m not seeing it in @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone’s argument here. They’re basically just disagreeing with you about whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering. They’ve been perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and you haven’t offered any actual justification for your position aside from a petty appeal to disgust.

          “Cognitive dissidence” reads like “If you disagree with me you’re wrong”, which is exactly your attitude here.

          • TranscendentalEmpire
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Cognitive dissonance" is when a person’s behaviors don’t match their stated values or beliefs. It’s basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate.

            I don’t think thats the definition of cognitive dissonance. It’s just holding two conflicting ideas at the same time, so your behaviour is by default not aligning with your ideas, because it’s impossible.

            I’m not seeing it in @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone’s argument here.

            I think the cognitive dissonance lies in the fact that they state no one should be subjected to that behavior, but they are arguing in favour of a person who is perpetuating the action upon others.

            whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering

            Right, but they were the only person who brought in the concept of “deserve”, it’s a strawman argument.

            Deserve implies some sort of ethical construct to judge the justification of the action. When in reality we are not choosing wether or not this action is being done, just witnessing it.

            Cognitive dissidence"

            Yeah, for some reason my autocorrect really like dissidence over dissonance. But I’d say that’s a fairly pedantic point to base your argument.