Mar 29, 2020
Every objection to “problematic content” I've ever seen has the same basic flaws:
Purely emotional/lacks relevant, accurate citations
Doesn't differentiate between thought and action
Assumes that the internet is, by default, a safe place
Diverts culpability away from direct actors
And all of these flaws destroy the entire argument against problematic content. There's legitimately no way to argue your point when these gaping holes exist in your logic.
I don't understand how this isn't recognized except by willful ignorance. The anti argument literally eats itself. I don’t get it.
