UlyssesT to the_dunk_tank • edit-215 days ago*Permanently Deleted*trashmessage-squaremessage-square39 fedilinkarrow-up192file-text
arrow-up192message-square*Permanently Deleted*trashUlyssesT to the_dunk_tank • edit-215 days agomessage-square39 Commentsfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareAndrzej3K [none/use name]hexbear38·edit-21 month agoAaahhhhhhhhggggyhgderggdukjgffddswrtf This is going to be a completely pointless comment, but I have to exorcize this demon: "oppressed" is already a value judgement, so none of this can be "foundational" in the way he is claiming oppression is a bad thing by definition, otherwise we'd call it something else so the oppressed are always right in not wanting to be oppressed, by definition dtgdrthgedseewqwefvvujnhfyjgfesaaaaaaaaaaghhhhh He's literally saying "have you considered that bad things might actually be good" link
minus-squareUmbraVivi [he/him, she/her]hexbear25·1 month agoExactly. When the weak group is in the right, we call them oppressed. Otherwise we call them terrorists, insurgents, criminals or something like that. "Should be that right is right" is such an idiotic sentence as well. link
Aaahhhhhhhhggggyhgderggdukjgffddswrtf
This is going to be a completely pointless comment, but I have to exorcize this demon:
dtgdrthgedseewqwefvvujnhfyjgfesaaaaaaaaaaghhhhh
He's literally saying "have you considered that bad things might actually be good"
deleted by creator
Exactly. When the weak group is in the right, we call them oppressed. Otherwise we call them terrorists, insurgents, criminals or something like that.
"Should be that right is right" is such an idiotic sentence as well.
deleted by creator