Again, I wasn’t defending the victim, I was criticizing the attacker. When presented with one person unintentionally offending someone, and another repeatedly verbally attacking them in retaliation, one must choose which evil to criticize.
If the person committing the repeated verbal attacks were the homophobe, then they’d be the one I’d criticize first. A strong moral compass and delusions of superiority are in no way justification for verbal attacks.
In my opinion, attacking someone for getting upset at homopbobia and defense of fascism serves to minimize the damage. This is why “tone policing” doesn’t work too well, BrainInABox is justified in attacking homophobia and running interference for fascists and slavers.
Agree to disagree. There’s nothing compelling about condescension, belittlement, and name calling, and it’s frankly discrediting to any message it’s attached.
You came out defending a homophobe and fascist defender despite agreeing that they were being homophobic, though. Why?
Again, I wasn’t defending the victim, I was criticizing the attacker. When presented with one person unintentionally offending someone, and another repeatedly verbally attacking them in retaliation, one must choose which evil to criticize.
If the person committing the repeated verbal attacks were the homophobe, then they’d be the one I’d criticize first. A strong moral compass and delusions of superiority are in no way justification for verbal attacks.
In my opinion, attacking someone for getting upset at homopbobia and defense of fascism serves to minimize the damage. This is why “tone policing” doesn’t work too well, BrainInABox is justified in attacking homophobia and running interference for fascists and slavers.
Agree to disagree. There’s nothing compelling about condescension, belittlement, and name calling, and it’s frankly discrediting to any message it’s attached.
But hey, you do you.