I think Uther is a controversial figure because he committed a genocide, not because he “doesn’t belong to himself.” In fact I think the problem in general with kings, especially Uther, is they kind of only serve their own interests instead of the people’s. Many such cases.
Also let’s really look in-depth at this:
although most ppl don't like it but it is beneficial for the majority.
We saw in canon, though, that profiling and generalizing all magic-associated peoples as inherently evil or corrupt did not actually help the majority. Many innocent people (both with and without magic) were falsely accused of criminal activity and corruption — including Guinevere and Elyan’s father, who was extrajudicially executed for having supposedly harbored a sorcerer.
The acts of a few individuals among the out-group do not necessitate stereotyping as a judicial force. The perspective that profiling and genocide can ever have a true basis in reality/biology or even be a “necessary evil” is reflective of a dangerous moral code and susceptibility to propaganda. This is what we call “biological essentialism.” By ever validating the concept in even just one scenario, you validate it across the board, universally. If you believe that a group is biologically inferior, then you believe in biological inferiority, which does in fact support all forms of bigotry.
The approach taken to a hypothetical scenario where the only difference between the fictional events and the non-fictional world is a simple swap of characters and targets is incredibly telling. It is more than safe to say that the morals this person applies to the media they engage with is a mere extension of the ideas they engage with in reality. And this person is openly encouraging a genocidal mindset.
since not all people can make it to the new world, then it is ok to abandon some.
Case closed, this is undoubtedly someone who believes that historical and present cases of religious, ethnic, and otherwise bigoted persecution is justifiable. This is the “devil’s advocate” in your classroom who secretly harbors those exact beliefs. We all have different takeaways from the media we engage with, but what we bring to it is equally unique, and this person is bringing in justifications for genocide and attempting to spread them to others. This is someone whose version of an ideal world excludes a target out-group — or many. This is someone whose red flags pose a material danger to people.
These beliefs don’t exist just in fiction. An early 2000s TV show did not invent the concept of bigotry and genocide. This person had beliefs supporting those horrors long before they ever saw this show, and seeing the examples of innocence among the persecuted group in the show did not change their mind.
Fiction doesn’t force any bias, it plays on pre-existing ones (You Are Not Immune To Propaganda). Fiction never stays “just fiction” because storytelling is a genuinely impactful art form, and art is a genuinely impactful form of expression. Just as not all words are protected under “free speech” such as hate speech or false exclamations of emergency, not all approaches to entertainment can be hand-waved, either. We rightfully criticize comedians who find their humor, audience, and profit in validating bigotry, though they defend this with their right to “free speech” and claim that it does not show their true beliefs.
And it is likewise right to criticize this exact action when applied to any other form of expression and media engagement. If it seems to be simple “common sense” to disagree with Uther’s genocide, that is simply because you did not agree with the notion of genocide or the rationale used to support it. This person openly believes in the rationale that supports genocide.
To avoid falling for bigoted propaganda does not mean memorizing a list of isolated rules, it means understanding the root causes and applying the learned logic under your own guidance to new situations. Fiction functions as a sort of practice for reality, whether that is to take the morals presented by a piece of media as an example of what to replicate or what to avoid. That is determined by the individual and, again, what they bring to the table. If you bring bio-essentialism to the table, you are leaving with a stomach full of bio-essentialism, and so are the other guests who don’t know to avoid it.
discoholicmusic
romaincrisis
dailybridgerton
2087
