"Context helps make them worse, but context doesn't always make a good action bad or vice versa. I think a Falwell encouraging casual violence is bad; that the hypothetical encourages it against women may be considered worse because it combines with larger power differentials."
High Arka responds:
"That's an interesting point. If someone is the current underdog, then, we should excuse them violent speech directed against the current overlord?"
At first I responded to what he clearly wants to say, but I should have been annoyingly logical. The above is not a response at all. Where did I excuse violent speech? The initial statement condemned it. You know, the Crow hate goes on just fine at Crow's blog. I can't very well defend the man because I never intended to. I have agreed with him, but I don't share his beliefs. Even if I did, I'd defend them differently.
Christ, if I wanted straw men and intentional exaggeration of my arguments, I'd have stayed in Kentucky or kept talking to my ex-father-in-law. If you've got an issue with Crow's comment about castration, go tell him yourself. I've critiqued his ideas of revolutionary justice aplenty. What I am saying is relatively clear. Genitals and skintone have a little bit of historical baggage around here. If you want to be all pedantic, then say "Well, I don't know why Wollstonecraft needed to vindicate woman's rights. She should have just vindicated people's rights." Yeah. The future starts now. We're all enlightened. Queers need to settle down. Women are uppity. I know plenty of blacks who love Ron Paul. This is where this is going, right?