I had someone steel this and change “butts” to “Christian” and weirdly enough, lengthen my skirt. Kept the flame boots, but no short skirts.
I had someone steel this and change “butts” to “Christian” and weirdly enough, lengthen my skirt. Kept the flame boots, but no short skirts.
Then why are they allowed?
Because things aren’t so black and white. Something not being acceptable doesn’t always mean it should straight up be outlawed. That’s not how the world works. People do socially unacceptable shit all the time and aren’t violating any laws by doing them.
You’re conflating law and morality.
That’s literally what you’re doing by saying that anything unacceptable shouldn’t be allowed. Just because something is acceptable, that doesn’t mean it isn’t allowed. Because laws and morality aren’t always a perfect 1:1.
I never mentioned laws. You did. Laws are irrelevant to this discussion. Precisely because laws and morality are not the same thing. We’re talking about rules of conduct on a platform.
And I’m saying that something being allowed doesn’t make it accepted. Unless… you think racist rants on Twitter are acceptable? After all, they’re allowed.
So either you think racist rants are acceptable, or you acknowledge that something being allowed doesn’t magically make everyone okay with it.
Thid is a weird strategy for you to take. Maybe you thought i forgot what I said. No, of course i don’t think they’re acceptable.
Twitter seems to think they are, though.
Lmao. Never said it did. When i said acceptable, did you really think i meant to everyone?
Well, yeah. This is what happens when you use such broad vague statements like, “if it’s allowed then it’s acceptable”. Anyone could interpret that as meaning “acceptable” to the general public.
But okay, fine. So something being allowed means that it’s acceptable to the ones making the rules? Alright, let’s analyze that a bit then.
I’m going back to laws because you seem to have missed the point of why I brought them up in the first place. If Twitter’s rules determine what’s allowed on their site, then laws determine what’s allowed irl. And by your logic, they then must determine what’s acceptable.
Now, you’re allowed to talk racist shit in public. Does that mean that every lawmaker alive rn finds that acceptable?
You’re allowed to smoke weed in quite a few states now. Is every lawmaker guaranteed to be on board because it’s allowed now?
You can smoke cigarettes outdoors and in smoking areas. That’s perfectly allowed. You think every individual lawmaker finds smoking acceptable?
Things aren’t so binary. Even those that make the rules, whether that be for an individual website or an entire country, aren’t necessarily going to find what’s allowed to be acceptable to them.
But something being unacceptable doesn’t mean something should be disallowed.
Oh come off it. Don’t pretend. It’s not vague at all. Allowed by whom? Accepted by whom? Why would they be separate questions with different answers? Why would you make that assumption? Why would a rule determining whether something is allowed be measuring its acceptance against anything other than their own standards?
Don’t move the goalposts. Not every lawmaker alive, no, but the legal system would certainly seem to find that acceptable, yeah.
I already pointed out this fallacy. Moving on.
Irrelevant statement as I already said
Would you, then, allow actions in your home you deem to be unacceptable? Of course not. If you find something to be unacceptable, you would not allow it.